Preamble

The House met at half-vest Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]

Read the Third time, and passed.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Lisnarick Bomb

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Which terrorist organisation was responsible for planting the booby-trap bomb at Lisnarick in County Fermanagh on 27 November; and if he will make a statement. [141751]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Royal Ulster Constabulary assesses that the attack at Lisnarick, County Fermanagh on 27 November 2000 was carried out by dissident republicans.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the case of Joe Fee, who has been identified as a leader of Continuity IRA. He was employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin as a consultant working alongside aid agencies in Croatia, and is alleged to have been involved in gun-running activities. What representations has the Northern Ireland Office made to the Department of Foreign Affairs on this matter and on the allegations of collusion involving retired Sergeant Eoin Corrigan of the Garda, which I understand are currently being investigated?

Mr. Ingram: The question raised by the hon. Gentleman is a matter for the Irish Government. I understand, however, that investigations by the Garda into arms importation from Croatia are continuing. Clearly, there will be close co-operation, and discussions between the Garda Siochana and the RUC will continue.

We cannot comment on current investigations. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual who has not been convicted of any offence.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Can the Minister explain how the Government distinguish between dissident republicans and IRA-Sinn Fein, whose representatives sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly? What links are there between Messrs McGuinness and Adams and dissident republicans, and what assessment has the Minister made of the links that members of the IRA army council have with so-called dissident republicans and the Continuity and Real IRA?

Mr. Ingram: The difference is that we judge one group to be on ceasefire, while dissident groups are not. Those dissident groups have carried out some of the attacks in recent months; and I pay tribute to the RUC and to the Garda Siochana for the way in which they have resolutely tackled those groups and have been able to stop their worst attempts to commit atrocities.

RUC Redundancy Scheme

Mr. William Thompson: If he will list by number and rank the serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have applied for redundancy under the scheme to reduce police numbers; and if he will make a statement. [141752]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I have placed the detailed information that the hon. Member requests in the Library. In total, 496 officers across the ranks have applied for voluntary early retirement under the scheme. The Government are committed through the early retirement scheme and the planned recruitment process to meet the composition targets of the new police service as set down in the Northern Ireland Office public service agreement.

Mr. Thompson: Given the increase in dissident republican activity and capability, and the failure, as yet, of nationalists and the republican community to endorse and support the new police service, is it not of grave concern to the Minister that so many senior and experienced policemen are opting to take the early redundancy scheme? Would the Secretary of State consider it prudent to postpone the early redundancy leaving date until matters become more clear?

Mr. Ingram: Of course, we take seriously the current threat—of which we see all too many manifestations. Earlier, I paid tribute to the efforts and successes of the RUC and the Garda in thwarting many attempted atrocities by particular groups.
As for the officers who have applied for inclusion in the voluntary redundancy scheme, that is clearly a matter for the Chief Constable and his management of resources. He has to make difficult and fine judgments as to when during the period in which they apply for early retirement he can allow his officers—senior and other—to leave the RUC.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when the implementation plan for the new police service will be published? Does he


surmise that now that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is in place, we might begin to see the gap in confidence between the two communities over policing start to narrow?

Mr. Ingram: We are consulting all the parties on the forward implementation of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act and we have been involved in intensive discussions with all the parties who could find themselves in a position to nominate to the new policing board. In recent days, the leaders of two of those parties—the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party—have made it clear that if good will prevails on both sides, progress can be made. It is down to those parties, with the Government, to find an answer to these very difficult issues.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Is it not a great pity that a senior officer of the reputation of Superintendent Anderson, who is leading the Omagh bombing inquiry, has felt it necessary to take early retirement because he is disillusioned with the changes in Northern Ireland policing?

Mr. Ingram: That is not the reason why he is leaving the RUC.

Helen Jones: In considering the need to maintain the numbers in the police force in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent statements made by Dr. Maurice Hayes, a former member of the Patten Commission, and by Monsignor Denis Faul, urging Catholics to join the police force in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that he will continue his efforts to ensure that the police service there represents all sections of the community?

Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute guarantee. Of course, that is what the Police (Northern Ireland) Act sets out to achieve with the 50:50 representation principles that are enshrined in that legislation, which was approved by both Houses of Parliament. We obviously welcome the views expressed by Maurice Hayes, who has been a long-time contributor to the debate on policing, and the views expressed by Monsignor Faul, because he has also been a major contributor to this debate. We also welcome Chris Patten's contribution to the debate. All those contributions point to the way forward for a new and better future for Northern Ireland; a new type of policing is an essential feature of that new society.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), what does the Minister believe Superintendent Anderson's reason was?

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that it is appropriate to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I was asked a direct question as to the precise reason on the basis of press reportage. I am able to confirm that what was reported in the press, as far as I am advised—accurately advised, I believe—is not the case. [Interruption.] I am not prepared to discuss

individual officers across the Dispatch Box, even with Members of the House as eminent as the right hon. Gentleman.

Peace Process

Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the peace process. [141753]

Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [141756]

Mr. Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [141757]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): Much has been achieved since Good Friday 1998. Progress has been made on key measures such as normalisation, the reviews of policing and criminal justice and the establishment of the devolved institutions. We still have some way to go, and the British and Irish Governments are working with the Northern Ireland political parties to ensure that progress continues on all fronts.

Mr. Winnick: Would not this be the appropriate time to thank President Clinton warmly for the time and commitment that he has given to the peace process in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend confident that the incoming United States Administration will also devote time and commitment to trying to bring a lasting peace to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mandelson: In the context of President Clinton's visit, I take the opportunity to thank the House for agreeing to the deferment of Northern Ireland oral questions until today. I especially thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for taking his oral questions a week early. All this allowed my colleagues and me and Northern Ireland Members to meet President Clinton, who gave a very welcome impetus indeed to the continuing efforts to resolve the difficulties being experienced in the peace process. He received a very warm and justified welcome from people across the community in Northern Ireland.
I also take the opportunity to offer a welcome to President-elect Bush. I believe that he will have a serious interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and will adopt an even-handed approach, and I look forward to working closely with members of his Administration.

Mr. Gardiner: While my right hon. Friend says that there is still some way to go, does he agree that the level of violence now in the Province is substantially reduced and incomparable with what it was a few years ago? Will he join me in paying tribute to the courage and vision of those who signed up to the Good Friday agreement? Does he agree that the House should give them all its support?

Mr. Mandelson: The reason why the security situation is transformed in Northern Ireland is that politics is at long last working there. That is due to the political parties and their leaders, who have shown great courage in taking


the risks that they have for the sake of peace. For all the ups and downs that we have experienced in the past year, this has been a very good year indeed for Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement is at last being fully implemented. We have devolved government for the first time in 25 years. We have inclusive political, devolved government in Northern Ireland For the first time in its history. We have the human rights and the equality agendas firmly established. We have radical policing reform under way and criminal justice reform on its way; security has been normalised in most areas of Northern Ireland.
All that we need now is for a little bit of attention to be paid by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries to arms decommissioning. On that, I travel in hope, but let us not look on the downside because we have a lot to celebrate at the conclusion of this year.

Mr. Baldry: Surely decommissioning must involve more than the IRA simply storing arms that are still under its control in holes in the ground. Is the Secretary of State content with that situation? In the run-up to Christmas, would it not be in the spirit of Christmas and the real meaning of peace if Sinn Fein-IRA were at last to start a genuine programme of decommissioning?

Mr. Mandelson: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I do not take away from the IRA the significance of its opening up certain of its arms dumps to international inspection and allowing the reinspection of those arms dumps, which has confirmed that those arms have not been used in the meantime. But that is a start, not a substitute for decommissioning. It is very important for everyone to realise that, if politics is to work permanently and if we are to normalise security in Northern Ireland permanently, nothing will give us greater confidence than serious moves towards decommissioning on the part not only of the IRA but of the loyalist paramilitaries.

Mr. David Trimble: While I fully appreciate the interest of President Clinton and his support for political developments in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State not share with me a certain disappointment at the dilatory approach of the US Administration to including the Real IRA on the State Department list of terrorist organisations? Will he call again for further progress on that? Does he agree that it will not be possible for the Government to look at security levels in south Armagh until effective action is taken against the Real IRA so that the threat that it poses has been removed?

Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the need to designate the Real IRA in terms of the anti-terrorist legislation in the United States. I am glad to say that, after an initial misunderstanding or lack of information—I do not know which—the United States Administration have now listened to, and considered rather more carefully, the representations that I have made. Given that the Irish Government have now decided to add their voice to that call, I am confident that the American Government will indeed designate the Real IRA. All that I can say is that, during President Clinton's visit, it was agreed that there should be a combined effort against the Real IRA by

the security forces not only of the British and Irish Governments but of the American Government. I think that that will lead to the most sustained and intensive political and security effort against dissident republicans that we have seen to date.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in spite of our difficulties, substantial progress has been made and the atmosphere on our streets has been transformed by peace? We have made progress that no one could have forecast years ago; we have an Assembly that is representative of all sections of our people working positively together; and we have an executive Government of all sections of our people working together and making a positive impact. The atmosphere that that has created will strengthen the resolve to tackle the current difficulties.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is justified in striking such an upbeat note at this time. The political will exists to carry us forward and to resolve the difficulties that relate to decommissioning, to the current sanction against Sinn Fein's participation in the north-south institutions and to the reform of policing. On that last point, it is important for the continued stability of Northern Ireland and the security normalisation that we want to take place that we make a good start to the new beginning that we are determined to make for policing. Some uncertainties on the new beginning remain, but I believe that they are temporary uncertainties. The Government's bottom line is that nothing should be done to deter the fresh recruitment that we want in the police service of Northern Ireland. That was Patten's bottom line; it remains mine, too.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: How will the Government be willing to assist former paramilitaries who are now establishing social inclusion projects in republican and loyalist communities to try to nurture more positive attitudes and to develop skills that are more in keeping with the more prosperous and peaceful environment in the Province today?

Mr. Mandelson: The provision of social and other support for ex-paramilitaries falls to the devolved Administration, but I have nothing but encouragement for former prisoners who have turned their backs on violence and who seek to put something back into the community. Through an intermediary funding body, I am responsible for the European Union's special support programme for peace and reconciliation that deals with ex-prisoners with paramilitary associations. Since 1995, more than £4 million has gone from the fund to support projects for ex-prisoners on both sides of the community.

Mr. Tony Clarke: On decommissioning, much has been said and reported about the inspection of dumps of paramilitary weapons that are held by the republican community. However, will my right hon. Friend pass comment on the lack of progress on decommissioning in the loyalist paramilitary community? The issue is often misinterpreted when we debate decommissioning, and it would be unfair not to mention the fact that, among loyalist paramilitaries and terrorists, decommissioning has not taken place and no progress has been made. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I ask for quiet in the Chamber?

Mr. Mandelson: I always couple my calls for decommissioning by the Provisional IRA with a demand for loyalist paramilitaries to do likewise. Progress on decommissioning is essential and it is an essential part of the Good Friday agreement. That is not because I seek to humiliate anyone or extract a sense of surrender, or because I wish to appease Unionist demands. I am not trying to avoid the further normalisation of security, either—quite the reverse. Progress on decommissioning is important precisely because it would create the very confidence that we need for normalisation to take place. By reducing the level of threat and the capability of terrorist organisations, decommissioning creates the circumstances in which further much-needed security normalisation can take place.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is still a grave security threat, especially in south Armagh, from the Real IRA and other dissident republican groups?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, which is precisely why we have to be careful and cautious in our approach to normalisation. Yesterday, Martin McGuinness denounced me on the radio for having a militarist mindset, but far from being a militarist, I am a demilitarist. In the season of good will and, with Christmas spirit, I say to Sinn Fein and the IRA that the same standard of demilitarisation must apply to them equally if we are to make the progress that we want in normalisation. I hope that they will heed that and act on it without further delay.

Mr. MacKay: So did the Secretary of State share our concerns at weekend press reports that the Irish Government are putting pressure on him to reduce the security presence in south Armagh, which would be very dangerous? Will he again give an undertaking, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no change in security arrangements without the full consent and agreement of the General Officer Commanding of our forces in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable? Does he agree that it is not a political issue, but entirely a security issue?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, I can give that categoric assurance. I act on the advice of the Chief Constable with the GOC in support. While the working of politics is imperfect in Northern Ireland, the need for proper protection and security remains. Of course, judgment calls will need to be made on what is needed and what is possible in terms of normalisation in south Armagh and elsewhere, and I will not shy away from making those judgments. However, we must not lose sight of reality and the risks that we take in getting those decisions right.

Criminal Profits

Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on measures being taken to prevent criminals profiting from unlawful activities in Northern Ireland. [141754]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Crime for profit is unacceptable in any normal society, but the nature of organised crime in the Northern Ireland context is particularly odious. We must not allow racketeering to affect the development of a normal civic society in Northern Ireland, and nor will we. For that reason, the Secretary of State announced on 25 September the establishment of an organised crime taskforce under my chairmanship, to co-ordinate at a strategic level the fight against organised crime. That taskforce has now met and a range of initiatives are being considered.

Ms Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that many criminals in Northern Ireland are profiting from tobacco smuggling, a high-return, low-risk activity? What measures is he taking to combat that crime and to stop criminals profiting from it?

Mr. Ingram: That problem is tackled on a multi-agency basis. Customs and Excise, which, in the main, leads initiatives against such criminality, has produced some marked successes this year. We are only three quarters of the way through the financial year and 45 million illegal cigarettes have been confiscated. That is a 100 per cent. increase on last year, when 22 million were confiscated. We can tackle that illegal activity if agencies work as they have been doing and we make them more effective, but we need the support of the community. The more information the RUC and Customs and Excise have, the more successful they will be.

Mr. William Ross: The fact that the agencies have managed to seize 45 million cigarettes serves to highlight the scale of the problem, but is it not a fact that the smuggling of road fuel far exceeds that activity? What undertaking has the Minister received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that effective steps will be taken to end that fuel smuggling?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman alights on the important issue of the smuggling of illicit fuel. Customs and Excise is able to show marked successes in dealing with that. However, the important thing is not just preventing the movement of fuel but closing down the laundering plants that produce substantial quantities of illicit fuel. This year alone, 13 fuel plants have been closed, and we calculate that that has prevented some 40 million litres of illicit fuel from entering the Northern Ireland economy, so we can claim some success, but we will not stop there.
What I said earlier about the multi-agency approach stands for all Departments, and the Treasury and the Chancellor have been helpful in implementing our initiatives.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware that almost one third of all motor fuel consumed in Northern Ireland is believed to be smuggled, and that while the number of registered vehicles has increased by 125,000 since 1995, the amount of legally imported fuel has dropped by nearly 50 per cent.?

Mr. Ingram: Without necessarily confirming those figures, I can tell the House that one of the functions of


the taskforce will be to analyse the extent of the problem. We already know some of the bases from which we are working, but my guess is that there are also many hidden aspects. We want to establish the facts before we introduce measures to tackle the problem because we want to be totally successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Thomas: When the general secretary of the Wales TUC said this week that manufacturing in Wales was in crisis, was he whingeing or telling the truth? When will the Prime Minister meet industrialists and inward investors in Wales to discuss what steps are needed to stop the current haemorrhage of jobs?

The Prime Minister: There are indeed serious problems in parts of manufacturing industry, particularly those affected by the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro. However, the overall picture on manufacturing is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, manufacturing investment is up, exports are up and productivity is up. It is important to realise that although real difficulties are suffered by certain manufacturing sectors, there are enormous success stories in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Ken Purchase: The Prime Minister will no doubt wish to join many others in congratulating the three towns granted city status this week, my own town of Wolverhampton included.
Knowing that my right hon. Friend shares my deep concern about manufacturing, I know that he will be disappointed to learn that, early this morning, the Goodyear tyre company announced a further 52 redundancies at its distribution plant in Wolverhampton. Those come on the back of 520 redundancies there and, sadly, 170 redundancies announced on Friday at Chubb, which is perhaps the oldest manufacturer of 1ocks and safes in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to rethink our views about consulting workers in good time before such decisions are made, given that in the case of Goodyear the decisions were made in America and handed down here, and in the case of Chubb, made in Sweden and handed down?

The Prime Minister: First, I congratulate Wolverhampton on its city status.
On manufacturing, of course we believe that it is important that employers consult their work force, but it is better that our laws are fashioned for our own

circumstances. Huge restructuring is occurring in many parts of manufacturing and, as I said a moment ago, there is a real problem in industries that have been heavily affected by the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro. However, artificial devaluation would be wrong.
It is important that we keep the stability in the economy which has given us interest rates that are, on average, almost half what they were when the Conservative party was in power. It is important also that apart from running a strong economy, we make sure that wherever people lose their job, we are on hand with help so that they get a new job. That is precisely why we have invested so much money in those areas—money that the Conservative party would cut.

Mr. William Hague: When the Government decided to use electronic tagging, which we support, for their disastrous early release scheme, which we strongly oppose, the Home Secretary said:
We have no plans or intention … to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.]
Have any serious or sexual offenders been released under that scheme?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that some have been, but overall the scheme is working extremely well. When it was put before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, it was supported unanimously by Conservatives. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take a different position now. It is important that we exclude serious sexual offences. We have done so and taken the other measures necessary to tighten up the scheme.

Mr. Hague: What the Prime Minister did not make clear is that when Members on both sides of the House supported electronic tagging, they had the assurance of the Home Secretary that I have just quoted. Now, almost 27,000 prisoners have been released under his scheme, including those who have committed offences of robbery, drug trafficking, grievous bodily harm with intent, attempted murder and sexual offences against children. Those people have been let loose to offend again. The result has been more than 1,000 crimes committed by people who have been released early, including robberies, kidnapping and two rapes. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the victims of those crimes?

The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman should point out that the scheme is for people who are released two to four months before the end of their sentence in any event. Secondly, the scheme that we now have is precisely the one which was put before the Select Committee and which it endorsed. Of course, in certain circumstances, people have committed offences from early release, as, indeed, under ordinary parole schemes. That is true, but in the end, it is better to have a system that allows us that than one that does not. That is precisely why all Governments, including the one of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, have early release parole schemes.

Mr. Hague: Never have we had a clearer demonstration of the complacency of this Prime Minister on crime. He says that early release does not matter


because people are let out only a few months early. They have committed 1,000 crimes in those few months. Those crimes would not have been committed but for the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who have set a new criminal record in the affairs of Government.
There has also been the early release of 178 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers; some of whom have gone on to assault police officers again. That is on top of falling police numbers and on top of excessive paperwork. Cannot the Prime Minister see why the police force feel under siege and that the criminal is winning? Does he at least recognise that there is a morale crisis in the police, or is he so out of touch that he will not admit that?

The Prime Minister: The only difference between the parole scheme that operated under the right hon. Gentleman's Government and our scheme is that people are now tagged when they are released. It is true of any early release scheme that some will reoffend, but that is not to say that we should not have such a scheme.
Yes, it is right that police numbers have fallen for something like seven years—10 years in London. As a result, we found the money in the comprehensive spending review to increase the numbers of police recruits. Now, in 27 of the 43 forces, more people are joining the police service than leaving it—for the first time in seven years. We are committed to that extra investment in the police service. Let the right hon. Gentleman put his money where his mouth is and say what he has consistently refused to say: that he supports that extra investment.

Mr. Hague: We set out our spending plans stage by stage. If the Prime Minister is banking on fighting the next election in the belief that we will be proposing a reduction in the police budget, he is even dafter than we thought.
The Prime Minister talks about police numbers, but, just last week, the Home Secretary published the table of police numbers, which shows that the number has gone down in every six-month period—the official recording period—since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister. He says that the number has gone up in 27 out of 43 police forces, but will he now admit to the House that the decrease in the other 16 more than cancels out the increase in the 27 to which he refers? It is not surprising that a chief inspector of West Yorkshire police says:
the situation is far more frustrating nowadays than at any time in my 28 years of service.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that the combination of what the Government have done has undermined the morale of the police force and damaged the fight against crime?

The Prime Minister: What I certainly accept is that police numbers are an issue and that they have been falling. It is for precisely that reason that we have put in the additional sum of money. As a result, police numbers can now rise. Indeed, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for the past two months, for the first time in 10 years, the number of people being recruited to the Metropolitan police in London has been greater than the number of

people leaving. Let me quote from an announcement to be made tomorrow by Greater Manchester police, that they have
The largest intake of police officers ever to be recruited into the Greater Manchester Police
and that
There are currently 1,700 applications being processed.
That is all the result of the extra investment that we have put in.
Let us return to the difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not yet made his position clear—well, he can say that again—but let me quote the shadow Home Secretary. When asked a short time ago whether she would support our investment, the right hon. Lady answered:
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to say yes or no to that, I think that is not a valid question at this stage.
But that is the question. I am the Prime Minister and I am putting in the money: the extra investment is going in. When the right hon. Gentleman returns to the Dispatch Box, will he tell us whether or not he would match that investment?

Mr. Hague: We had 3,000 more police officers only three and a half years ago. I have given the Prime Minister his answer: if he thinks that we shall propose a cut in the police budget, he is off his head. That is not what we shall propose at the next election. Now, will he answer our questions about the morale of the police force? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the collapse in morale is the way in which the Macpherson report has been used to undermine the police—[Interruption.]—used by others to undermine the police? The head of the Police Federation says:
The spirit, the confidence, the whole feeling of the police service has been affected in the past two years since the publication of Macpherson.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his own police Minister, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that there has been "an impact on morale"?

The Prime Minister: It is of course right that, after the Macpherson report, it was extremely important that police officers understood that they should carry on using the stop-and-search powers that they have. It is precisely for that reason that, in January this year, I said in the Police Federation magazine after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said the same, that the police should carry on using those powers. Indeed, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying last week, those powers are still in use, and the latest figures we have indicate that they are as much in use in respect of people from ethnic minorities as they are in respect of those from the white population. Let me put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. When we launched Macpherson in February 1999, he said to me:
does the Prime Minister agree that our police force will need—and will want—changes to be made to root out racism and to prevent such an injustice happening again?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 380.]
That was right. It is also correct to say, as he did, that the vast majority of police officers are not racist and that the vast majority of police officers do a good job. We said exactly that at the time.
What is affecting police morale now is the issue of pay and allowances. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the single most disastrous element in that respect was the decision made by the Conservative Government, when he was a member of the Cabinet, to get rid of the London housing allowance for officers. We have now put an extra £3,300 per year on the pay of new recruits joining after 1994. That is part of our investment, which is why it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to attack us without being prepared to commit himself to the investment to which we have committed ourselves. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he made a commitment in July that he would not match our spending, saying that it was unsustainable. He may talk about police morale in London, but we are the Government who are putting more money into the Met. He is committed to taking that money back out again.

Mr. Hague: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously prepared his answers on the basis of certain questions, and they are not relevant to the questions that we are asking. We are clearly not committed to taking the money out again. The right hon. Gentleman could at least have read on when he quoted me. I went on to say:
However, will he also agree that to condemn every police officer in London or the country as racist would itself be prejudiced and wrong?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 380.]
Why did he not read the rest of the passage?
Now that we know that we cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman's figures on crime, I ask him whether the following is right. Police numbers have fallen by 3,000 since he came to power. That is right. The number of constables has fallen from a peak in the spring of 1997. That is right. Voluntary resignations from the police force have increased by 60 per cent. under Labour. That is right. Crime has increased by 4 per cent in England and Wales in the year to April. Violent crime has increased by 16 per cent. Robberies have increased by 26 per cent. More than 26,000 criminals have been released early and 1,000 crimes have been committed by those criminals. Instead of being tough on crime, the right hon. Gentleman has been tough on the crime fighters instead.

The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of one uncomfortable fact for the Conservative party. In its 18 years of office, crime doubled. Crime has fallen under this Government according to the British crime survey. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that in the first three years of the Labour Government police numbers have fallen. However, they also fell when he was a Member of the previous Cabinet. They have fallen for seven years. In London, they have fallen for 10 years.
We have to decide how we deal with the situation. We decided that it was right to put in additional sums to recruit police officers. That is why I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that when the next recruitment figures are published, they will show that police numbers are rising. His position is to cut the very n oney—[Interruption.] I know that July may be a long time away in policy-making terms, but in July he said:
We are concerned that Gordon Brown is setting an unsustainable course for public spending. It will increase in real terms by 3.3 per cent. compared to a growth forecast of just over 2 per cent.

The right hon. Gentleman added:
We are making it clear … that a Conservative government will increase public spending by a smaller proportion than … growth of the economy.
We have a 3.3 increase and on the other side we have 2 per cent. That means a cut of a third in the extra numbers of police because of the money. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot complain about police numbers if he is cutting the money that is put in to increase those numbers. What people will not forget about him and the previous Conservative Government is that under them crime doubled. Under this Government, crime is falling. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, the numbers of police were falling; we are lifting the numbers of police again.

Mr. John Hume: In the light of the Prime Minister's discussions in Nice last week, does he agree that European union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution, given the first half of the previous century, when in two world wars millions of human beings were slaughtered? Who could have forecast that the same peoples in the second half of that century would come together? For that very reason, would it not be a good idea, given that the right hon. Gentleman was discussing a European army last week, to discuss also the setting up of a department of peace and reconciliation and a Commissioner for peace and reconciliation at European level?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether it would be wise to suggest another Commissioner at this point, but I say to my hon. Friend that there is no doubt at all that the European Union has been a force for security and peace in our world. There may be those on the other side of the House who wish us to withdraw from the EU, but I think that we should be proud of the fact that we are members. We should be in there to make the EU work for this country and get the best out of it for Britain. That is the common-sense view.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In the festive spirit, may I inquire whether the Prime Minister and his family will manage to take a well-earned break abroad after Christmas? Can he confirm whether, should he be out of the country, the Deputy Prime Minister will add his presence to every other Department of responsibility, as opposed to transport, of which he is making such a success?

The Prime Minister: To get to the point about which the right hon. Gentleman asks by a circuitous route, it is important that we make sure that the transport system has the investment that it needs and the rail recovery plan, which has been important. After Hatfield, it was absolutely right that we and Railtrack took the steps to ensure that safety was restored to the railways. We are putting the extra investment in—there is no alternative to that. The plain fact of the matter is that British railways have been under-invested for more than 20 years, and it is time that we put that right.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the funding of the railways has been cut by 25 per cent. since he became Prime Minister? We face a Christmas period in which passengers have chaos before them—


connections that will be impossible to make and timetables that do not add up. When will that maladministration of our railway network come to an end?

The Prime Minister: First, I do not recognise the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Secondly, investment in the railways is set to increase by a dramatic amount over the next few years. However, it is the case that—as with the police and, in part, as with the national health service—we had to be careful on the money that we spent because when we came to office there was a very large level of debt. It was important to clear that. Now that we have the stability that we need in the economy, we are able to put in the public service investment that we require so that we can have additional teachers that we need and, the additional police that we need so that the extra investment in the railways can be done.
I make another point to the right hon. Gentleman. In each case, we shall put in far more money than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for. The one thing that is absolutely, consistently sure in politics is that, however much money we put in, the Liberal Democrats want more.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What action is to be taken about the alarming, escalating violence involving KFOR in Kosovo?

The Prime Minister: KFOR is there, obviously, to keep the different sides apart. It is performing that task—I think in difficult circumstances—extremely well. I do not know whether my hon. Friend means the actions taken by certain of the extremist Kosovar Albanian groups, but, precisely for that reason, additional measures were announced in the past few weeks and are being taken.
I say to my hon. Friend that, were it not for the fact that we allowed those refugees from Kosovo to go back, we would have, in addition to all Europe's other problems, 1 million Kosovar Albanians seeking refuge in parts of Europe. We were entirely justified to do what we did. There will be difficulties of course, because of the ethnic hatred which goes back a long way, but it is right that KFOR is there. I think it is doing an excellent job.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Government grant for rural policing in Surrey next year is only £11,000. The chief constable wrote to me today to say that that is equivalent to only £20 a week for each Surrey borough. He also warns of the adverse impact on the services provided by Surrey police. Is it not clear that there is new crime in our communities because the Government have denied our police the support and the flexibility that they need to do the job?

The Prime Minister: Given that part of the extra money that we announced was specifically for rural communities, and given the fact that the hon. Gentleman and every other Opposition Member who spoke condemned that extra spending at the time, it is the richest opportunism for the Conservatives to say that there is a problem and that more money is needed, and then, when it comes to more money, oppose it. That is absurd.

Siobhain McDonagh: My right hon. Friend will be unaware that 100 first-time voters from Mitcham and Morden will

attend a reception in the House of Commons this evening. He would be very welcome to join them if he is free, as would you, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that over the next few years many of those young people will want to buy their own home—an enormous financial investment, particularly in the London area. Will he give an assurance that his Government will do all they can to make the dream of home ownership a reality, and affordable? Will he prevent the increases in interest rates and mortgage rates that occurred under the previous Government?

The Prime Minister: The most important thing for any home owner is low mortgage rates. The House will remember that over the past three years, we have had average mortgages and average interest rates of about 6 per cent. The House will also remember what happened under the previous Government, when interest rates went to 15 per cent. for a year and 10 per cent. for four years. I know that the Opposition do not like to be reminded, but that is what happened when they were in government. As a result of this Government stabilising the economy and getting rid of the previous level of debt, mortgages have come down. As a result of measures such as the working families tax credit and other help, people have the income with which to buy homes. The single most important thing that we can do is to make sure that we keep the economic stability that we have, and never, under any circumstances, return to boom and bust.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I remind the Prime Minister that on 24 November last year, I asked him to keep the promise made by his Health Secretary, who said in the Chamber that no patient
will be denied the drugs that they need. That is a guarantee.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]
I was specifically referring to my constituents who needed beta interferon to treat the progressive disease, multiple sclerosis. More than a year later, we have no decision from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. My constituents' lives have deteriorated and, in many cases, will be beyond the help of that much-needed treatment. Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that he has let down patients so badly? Does that not show that all his guarantees are worthless, and that one cannot trust a word that he says?

The Prime Minister: First, the postcode lottery on drugs was not invented by the Government. It went on under the hon. Lady's Government, year in, year out, as she well knows. Secondly, it is correct that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering beta interferon. That is the right thing to do, so that on the basis of a proper assessment, we can make sure that people get the drugs that they need. I point out to the hon. Lady that there is, again, a simple choice: if we want people to get the extra drugs that they need, not just in respect of multiple sclerosis, but in respect of cancer, yet again, we need extra investment and money going into the national health service. I remind her that whereas we are committed to that extra money, she and every Opposition Member are committed to cutting that extra money.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government implement proposals by children's charities and adoption


agencies, many children who are spending this Christmas in care could soon be living in new families? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will consider reforming the adoption process, and will also put in place clear, enforceable and properly funded support services for adopted children and their families?

The Prime Minister: Without stating what will be in the White Paper tomorrow, there is a general recognition that the law on adoption needs changing, that it has been far too inflexible in the past, and that there have been children who, given the chance to have a loving and decent home, were prevented from getting that home by the inflexibility of the current system In the White Paper tomorrow, we will make sure that additional flexibility is introduced. I hope very much that the document will get a warm welcome in every pan of the House.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Prime Minister reflect on just who played the race card recently?

The Prime Minister: I will make it quite clear. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is a racist; I am simply suggesting that he is an opportunist. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have quiet in the Chamber. I expect better from Front Benchers. [Interruption.] Order. I expect better from everyone, especially Front Benchers.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) should have asked the

question unless he wanted the answer. While I hope very much that the police will continue to use their stop-and-search powers over Christmas, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition employ a policy of stop and think. With a little bit of luck, he might come back in January and, instead of raising problems, actually have a solution to them.

Mr. Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend remember the cancellation of £600 million of investment in London Transport, and the postponement for two years of the refurbishment of the Northern line? That was a direct result of the last Tory Budget, in 1996.
Would my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent James Leek, and many other former Tory voters in Wimbledon, that what Londoners want this Christmas is a clear commitment from this Labour Government to massive new investment in the tube?

The Prime Minister: We are back to what is one of the key debates between the two parties. We are indeed committed to increasing investment in the London underground in the next few years, and in transport generally. What we know from the shadow Chancellor is that he is committed to cutting that investment.
Let me tell Opposition Members that—if the issue is police numbers, if the issue is the national health service, if the issue is our schools, or if the issue is transport—we are very happy to have this debate with them. We believe in investing in our public services, and they believe in cutting them. We know that because, in 18 years of government, that is precisely what they did.

Mental Health

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's plans for new mental health legislation, set out in the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act", which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are publishing today. It includes our plans for managing patients who are dangerous and have severe personality disorders.
Millions of people—perhaps as many as one in six of the population—face mental illness at some point in their lives. About 630,000 patients with serious mental health problems are being cared for by specialist mental health services across England and Wales at any one time; and for every individual with serious mental health problems, there are many others—families, carers, friends and, indeed, members of the wider public—who are affected, sometimes with tragic consequences. It is for those reasons that the Government have made improving mental health services a key clinical priority for the national health service.
First, we have made investment a priority. For the first time, ring-fenced funding is expanding what have for too long been Cinderella services, especially for those who are most seriously ill. By April next year there will be almost 500 extra secure beds, at least 320 extra beds staffed 24 hours a day, and 170 assertive outreach teams. Every patient with complex health needs will have access to services 24 hours a day, seven days a week
We have already recruited 3,000 new staff in mental health services. The NHS plan that we published in July announced a further £330 million investment in those services over the next three years. There will be further substantial increases in staff and new investment in specialist community health services and improved primary care services for all people with mental health problems. That investment will help to ensure public safety and will improve patient care.
Secondly, we have made reform a priority for mental health services. Last year, we published "Mental Health National Service Framework", to give local health and social services for the first time, clear national standards against which to operate. That will help to tackle the lottery in care which means that some patients in some areas miss out on services and treatments that others receive as of right. It provides a clear statement for patients and their carers about what services they can expect, wherever they live. It has been widely welcomed by patients, carers, clinicians and managers.
The White Paper that we are publishing today will now underpin those improvements in mental health services with reforms to mental health laws. Good quality care and treatment are the key to making sure that most people with mental health problems never need to fall within the scope of mental health legislation. Despite public perceptions to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are a threat to no one. Indeed, many mentally ill patients are among the most vulnerable in the community.
Reducing the stigma which attaches to people with mental illness should be a priority for any caring, civilised society. There will always be some people with a serious

mental disorder, however, who do not seek care and treatment when they need them. Sometimes, they do not recognise how ill they are; sometimes, they are so disabled by their mental illness that they are not able to seek help; and sometimes, they choose not to seek help. In some cases, that means that people with serious mental disorder will pose a significant risk to other people in their family or in the community, as well as to themselves.
In those circumstances, the Government have a duty to protect both individual patients and the wider public, when a person poses such risks. Mental health legislation should help us to do just that. The Mental Health Act 1983 is largely based on the last major review of the mental health legal framework, which took place in the 1950s. Since then, the way in which services are provided has dramatically changed. More seriously, the current laws have failed properly to protect the public, patients and, indeed, staff. Under existing mental health law, the powers compulsorily to treat patients are only available if they are in hospital. However, the majority of patients today are treated in the community. Public confidence in care in the community has been undermined by failures in services and failures in the law.
The policy lost public confidence because, in too many cases, neither services nor the law properly protected either patients or the public. There have been no requirements for local health and social services to exchange relevant information about patients. Services have too often worked in isolation from one another. Too often, severely ill patients have been allowed to drift out of contact with mental health services altogether. Many patients have failed to comply with treatment. Clinicians have been in the absurd position of having to wait until patients in the community become ill enough to require admission to hospital. That prevented early intervention to reduce the risks to both patients and the public. In particular, existing legislation has failed to provide adequate public protection from those whose risk to others stems from a severe personality disorder.
As a result, patients and the public alike have been put at risk. They have been denied the protection that they need. The tragic toll of over 1,000 suicides and 40 homicides every year involving patients who have been in touch with mental health services in the previous 12 months graphically illustrates the failure of the old legal framework. It is outdated; it is in desperate need of reform.
Our proposals today clarify the circumstances in which care and treatment should be provided without the consent of people with mental disorder, either in their own interests or in the wider interests of public safety. They introduce new safeguards to protect patients' rights when care and treatment is given without their consent.
We have consulted widely over the past year on our plans for reform. They will mean major changes in four key areas. First, safeguards will be improved for patients. Removing an individual's liberty against his will is a very serious step to take and must be balanced by suitable safeguards that are fully consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998.
For the first time, all decisions to apply compulsory powers to treat a patient for more than 28 days will be subject to independent scrutiny by a judicial body—the new mental health tribunal. The tribunal, which will be chaired by a senior lawyer, will consider the care and


treatment plan proposed by the clinical team. It will take independent advice from medical and other experts and from patients or their representatives. Its decisions will be binding on the NHS and will be regularly reviewed. Patients who are subject to compulsory powers will, as now, have the right to free legal advice. They will also, for the first time, have a right to help from a specialist independent advocacy service.
A new Commission for Mental Health will also be established with a clear remit to monitor the quality of decision making and whether the powers in new legislation are being used in a way that is consistent with the key principles that underpin it. The commission will provide new safeguards to protect the rights of people with long-term mental incapacity who are in need of specialist treatment for mental disorder, but who are not able to participate fully in decisions about how that care is provided. The commission will be fully independent and will report annually.
Secondly, there will be new safeguards to protect patient and public safety by extending compulsory treatment powers from the hospital ward into the community. The complexity of current laws which mean that there are several routes to compulsory treatment will be simplified. In future, there will be a single entry point to compulsory treatment based on a full and fair assessment of each individual's care and treatment needs.
New care and treatment orders will mean that patients subject to compulsory treatment, whether in hospital or in the community, will have to comply with the terms of their treatment programme. Refusal to do so could result in the patient being readmitted to hospital. Care plans will take into account a patient's best interests and any risk that they pose to other people. Compliance with treatment and contact with services will both be enforced under the new legislation in a way that was never possible under the 1983 Act.
Care and treatment orders in the community will allow clinical teams to intervene earlier to prevent a patient's condition from deteriorating. The risk that patients may pose to themselves or to others should be reduced as a result.
Thirdly, public protection will be further strengthened by introducing new duties, backed up by robust safeguards, to cover the disclosure of information about patients suffering from mental disorder. Inquiry after inquiry has demonstrated that a breakdown of communication between local services responsible for a patient's care has been a significant factor in many of the homicides and suicides committed by severely mentally ill people. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.
There will be new powers to exchange information between statutory agencies to parallel the other steps that the Government are taking to improve co-ordination between health and other local services.
The Government are also committed to improving the level of service provided to victims generally and giving proper recognition to the needs of victims of mentally disordered offenders in particular. The new legislation will allow victims of mentally disordered offenders to be given appropriate information about the offender's discharge as well as his detention. We also aim to enable victims to make representations to the mental health tribunal when it considers discharging the offender from hospital.
Fourthly, there will be new criteria giving clear authority for the detention of patients who pose a significant risk of serious harm to others as a result of a mental disorder. They will include the detention of dangerous people with a severe personality disorder. The Government are determined to deal with the challenge to public protection posed by that small group of people.
Our proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation following publication of the joint Home Office and Department of Health document in July 1999. Neither the law nor services are currently geared to cope with the risks posed by dangerous people with a severe personality disorder. Many cannot be compulsorily detained in hospital because they can be defined as untreatable under the current law. Many are sent to prison after committing a serious crime and are a danger to the public upon release. As a consequence, there has been a gap in the protection that mental health laws should afford the public—a gap that we will now close.
In place of the flawed concept of treatability, new criteria will separate those who need treatment primarily in their own best interests from those who need treatment because of the risk that they pose to others. In cases that involve those who present a high risk of harm to other people, the use of compulsory powers will be linked to a care and treatment plan, which describes how to treat the underlying mental disorder and manage behaviours that arise from it. Compulsory treatment can go ahead only after a full assessment by doctors and with the agreement of the independent mental health tribunal. High-risk people who are before the courts for an offence will be able to be remanded for assessment and treatment.
Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have powers to direct those already serving a prison sentence to be sent for assessment and treatment. Subject to the new mental health tribunal, dangerous people with a severe personality disorder will be able to be detained for as long as they continue to present a high risk to others—indefinitely, if necessary. It should go without saying that the full range of safeguards that I outlined earlier to the House will apply to that group of people.
The Government recognise that new powers to deal with those who pose the greatest risk to the public will not by themselves be enough to safeguard the public. New specialist services are also needed. In the recent spending review, £126 million has been allocated across the Department of Health, the Prison Service and the Home Office to develop assessment and treatment services for that high-risk group.
The extra resources will allow extra staff to be employed and will provide 320 new specialist places in high-security settings in the Prison Service and the health service, as well as 75 specialist hostel places. New approaches to the assessment of the group are currently being piloted in both the Prison Service and the NHS. Treatment pilots will begin next year. The evidence will be used to inform future decisions about how new services should best be structured.
The changes amount to the biggest shake-up in mental health laws in four decades. They will strengthen the current law, introduce new safeguards for patients, and improve protection for the wider community. Taken with the major investment and reforms that are now occurring


in our mental health services, the proposals will enhance the safety both of patients and the public. I commend them to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in making a copy available an hour before he delivered it—that was extremely helpful to the Opposition.
It is not surprising that all parties will agree with a great deal in the statement. Perhaps the most important aspect is the need to reduce the stigma that is attached to mental illness and encourage a new culture that is far more understanding of the problems for affected individuals and their families.
I welcome the move to more care in the most appropriate setting, which must lead to better clinical outcomes. I welcome the move towards compulsion in community settings, which brings the law more into line with current practice. I also welcome the establishment of the tribunals and the commission, which will create a better balance in the system.
Although there is a place for compulsion, it would be unfortunate if it dominated our debate about mental illness and our discussion was perceived to apply only to a small number of people when many other more pastoral issues need to be addressed.
The Secretary of State's rhetoric is not matched by the Government's priorities. He spoke of the desperate need for reform and said that that was a key priority. Yet the Queen's Speech could have provided for legislation on the subject—the Opposition would have supported that. If the public are at such risk, they might want to ask the Government why they make time available for banning fox hunting or considering the plant varieties legislation, but not for much-needed mental health legislation.
There are a number of specific matters on which I would like the Secretary of State to explain the Government's thinking. The first is severe personality disorder. What is the Government's estimate of the number of people who fall into that category, both inside and outside the criminal justice system? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to the House that those patients will not find their way on to already overstretched acute psychiatric wards? He rightly referred to vulnerability. Patients who are recovering from severe depression or are tackling schizophrenia find things difficult enough without the disruption caused by potentially dangerous patients on the same ward. We must be given an absolute guarantee that such disruption will not occur.
I was confused by one of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He said that, in place of the flawed concept of treatability, new criteria would separate those who need treatment for different reasons. However, the whole point about personality disorder is that it cannot be treated. The right hon. Gentlaman then said that the use of compulsory powers would be linked to a care and treatment plan. What treatment? The assumption seems to be that a large number of personality disorders are based on an underlying condition that can be treated, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that will apply only to a small group of people. Was he speaking about treatment or management? The terms must be clearly delineated.
I have three specific points for the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke about the single point of entry to compulsory treatment. Does that mean reducing the number of sectioning mechanisms that currently exist, and that the single entry point, as he put it, would consist of sectioning with the signatures of two doctors and a psychiatrically qualified social worker? If that is the case, flexibility will be dramatically reduced, which would be a problem in many rural areas. I hope that he will take that practical point into account when he deals with the matter in more detail.
How will the proposals specifically address the Bournewood judgment, which relates to patients who lack the capacity to give consent? I was sorry that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the much-needed balance for victims of mentally disordered offenders, he did not say anything about mentally disordered offenders themselves. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about the fact that people under the care of the Prison Service who suffer from mental illness are less likely to be diagnosed and treated, and are consequently at far higher risk of suicide.
The Opposition will support the Secretary of State if, when he puts legislation before the House, he proposes to dismantle the prison health service and bring it into the national health service. That would give to mentally ill offenders the same access to care and quality of care that is enjoyed by everybody else. If we want to provide the appropriate treatment for individuals in the appropriate setting, it would make sense to introduce a far more seamless change in the way in which such patients are dealt with.
There is a great deal with which the Opposition agree, some things that we do not believe have been adequately explained, and areas that we would like to explore. The proposals are a start and we will support the Government where we think that they are sensible, but we would like to see far more detail and want the Secretary of State to consider some areas that he does not seem to have considered so far.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his overall welcome for our proposals. There is clear agreement on the first three points that he made. First, those of us who care about the national health service and about the needs of people with mental illness must do all that we can to reduce stigma. My Department is making efforts to do that, alongside other Departments. I know that the matter has been the subject of genuine concern among hon. Members from all parties and especially those who serve on the Select Committee on Health. We need to up our efforts.
Secondly, we must ensure that patients are cared for in the most appropriate setting. My view is that we must ensure that people with serious mental illness are provided with care in the least restrictive environment that is consistent with their needs and safety, as well as the safety of the wider community and the public. Thirdly, although tomorrow's newspapers will inevitably be full of headlines about the proposals for dangerous people with severe personality disorders—or SPD—the hon. Gentleman was right to say that the White Paper extends much more widely. Indeed, we published it in two parts to try to make it clear that a legal framework exists, that it should apply to all patients, and that specific measures


must be taken for the small minority of patients and others who are a high risk to other people. I think that that gets the balance right.
It is difficult to estimate of the number of dangerous people with a severe personality disorder. We are breaking new ground in trying to estimate the numbers and in trying to provide new services for the people concerned. Our best estimate is that there are about 2,200 such people in the community and in the prison population, although largely in the prison population.
On the subject of overcrowded wards and the pressures that are placed on staff, there are undoubtedly, real pressures on psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and others. Investment is going in to the hospitals and to the community services to help ease those pressures. Arguably, that investment should have gone in many years, or even many decades, ago. We are talking about providing a whole range of new, specialist services for dangerous people with a severe personality disorder, on top of the mainstream mental health services that we are already expanding and reforming.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the inability to treat those with a severe personality disorder. However, there are real differences of clinical opinion on that. Some clinicians say that such people are impossible to treat; others say that they can be treated. We take the view that current legislation provides a lottery, because some dangerous people with a severe personality disorder get treatment and services and others do not. The people who do not are a risk not only to the wider community—and, especially to their families, who inevitably bear the brunt when things go wrong—but to themselves. If it is good enough to provide specialist mental health services for one person in this group, it should be good enough to provide them for all.
Countries such as Holland and Germany have had some success in piloting new therapeutic interventions to manage the behaviours that arise from these mental disorders. We are undertaking further piloting, both in Whitemoor prison and in Rampton, to roll out the appropriate model of care.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the Bournewood judgment, which is important for those with a long-term mental incapacity, including those with learning disabilities. The White Paper provides safeguards—particularly for that group of patients—partly as a response to the Bournewood judgment. That group of patients will be brought under the umbrella of the new Commission for Mental Health. I hope that that will help to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed on the issue.
I agree that prison mental health services need improvement. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are working closely to ensure far closer integration between mental health services provided in the national health service and those provided in the Prison Service.
My final point is about the time that it takes to make the changes. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was a Minister in the previous Government, who were in power for 18 years. They had the opportunity to put right the deficiencies in the law and in services, but they failed to do so. This Government are getting on with the job, modernising the services and putting in the investment. It would be good to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he supports the investment being made, and that his party would match it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that one question only is to be put to the Secretary of State. Any hon. Members who have three questions will have to decide which one is the most important.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I broadly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I have two points, rather than two questions, that I should like him to clarify.
First, there were distinctions between the recommendations of the expert committee on the reform of mental health law, and the contents of the Green Paper. Do those distinctions remain and, if so, why?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State expand on his point about the impact of human rights legislation on mental health law? I make this point because of the concern expressed by the Select Committee, when its members visited the special hospitals. We were told that 30 per cent. of the patients in Ashworth hospital could have been contained in lower-security institutions and, in some instances, in the community. We were also told that 60 per cent. of the women patients at Broadmoor could have been contained in the community under assertive outreach.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend has been in politics for far too long; he knows the old trick of putting one item on the agenda with two more arising from it—we have all done that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his broad welcome. On the Richardson committee, when he has an opportunity to study the proposals in the White Paper—I know that he will do so carefully—he will find that they are largely based on the committee's recommendations. I can give him that assurance.
On compliance with the European convention on human rights, my hon. Friend will be aware that the convention makes it clear that there is a right to liberty but that it is subject to express exceptions—one of which, in article 5(1)(e), is the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind. That is why we are convinced that the proposals are wholly compliant with the convention and with the Human Rights Act 1998.
My hon. Friend makes a good point about patients detained in special hospitals. Our estimate is rather lower than his; we think that about 60 patients are currently contained in the three special hospitals; they have gone through all the hoops with the Home Office and so on and could be released to a lesser form of secure intervention. We need to make more progress on that matter; we certainly need to make more progress for women patients in the hospitals. The additional investment that we are making in secure beds and other facilities will help us to do just that.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the statement and the Government's plans to amend the law. I also welcome the fact that, from a civil liberties point of view, some of the objections to the earlier proposals seem to have been met. Certainly, the wide entitlement to go to tribunal and the provision of independent advocacy should be a significant improvement.
We have not heard much about resources, however. The Secretary of State acknowledged in his statement that mental health services have been the Cinderella of the


health service. He pointed out that some progress is being made in that regard, but is not there still a serious shortage both of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses? If the improvements in the service envisaged in the White Paper both in secure settings and in the community are to come about, further progress will be needed—in particular, much more recruitment will be needed.
On severe personality disorders, what criteria will be used to have people considered in the first place? Will such consideration be based on a pattern of previous behaviour, or is that not to be taken into account? The Royal College of Psychiatrists points out:
The link between severe personality disorder and dangerousness is extremely tenuous and poorly researched. We will find that most people with a severe personality disorder are not dangerous and most people who are dangerous in the Government sense will not have a severe personality disorder.
What is the Secretary of State's response to that point? What approach will be taken towards people who have no previous record or pattern of behaviour, but may nevertheless fit the criteria that the Government are considering?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the proposals. He is right to point out that there are significant safeguards to deal with some of the reasonable civil liberties arguments. As I said in my statement, to take away someone's civil liberties without consent is a serious step, so it is important that safeguards are in place. The tribunal and the fact that it will regularly review the compulsory treatment order will be extremely important.
For the information of the House, I shall explain how that will work. The assessment period for someone who could be subject to compulsory treatment will take up to 28 days. After 28 days, the tribunal will meet and will take evidence from various parties—including the patient's clinical team, but also external second opinions. It will be able to make an order, in the first instance, for up to six months; then for a second period of up to six months; and after that, for periods of up to 12 months. In each of those periods, patients and their representative will be able to call for a review of that decision and they will receive a fair hearing. Those are significant safeguards to deal with the issues.
On staffing—yes, there are shortages of psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses and other nurses in the psychiatric profession. We are making progress, however. Over the past couple of years, an extra 350 consultant psychiatrists have been working in the NHS; and 2,000 more nurses are working in mental health services in the NHS. By 2005, I expect that—from the position that we inherited—there will be a 60 per cent. increase in the number of consultant psychiatrists working in the NHS, because of the extra training places and the resources that we are making available.
As for admitting someone with a severe personality disorder, the best test of dangerousness is likely to be offending behaviour and a pattern of offending behaviour. However, there will need to be other tests, too, because we know from our constituency experiences that although there will be people out there who have offended in the past, they may not have come to the official notice of the criminal justice organisations. We must have the means

of properly and precisely assessing those people for their dangerousness and for the risks that they pose to others in society.

Mr. Robin Corbett: In welcoming my right I hon. Friend's proposals, I thank him for the attention that he has paid to the Home Affairs Committee report on the issue of dangerous people with a severe personality disorder. Will he please clarify that when people are assessed, they will be held in specially built separate units?

Mr. Milburn: Yes. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, I think that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the White Paper because, in large part, it reflects what his Select Committee said—I believe unanimously—about the issue of dangerous people with a severe personality disorder. I can confirm to him absolutely that we will ensure that people with severe personality disorders will be treated and cared for in specialist units in precisely the way that he describes.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a very much more enlightened policy than that advocated by his predecessor and the Home Secretary when they last spoke in a really shockingly authoritarian manner on these matters? May I also commend Genevra Richardson again for her extremely impressive report?
In the light of the endless examples of relatives, parents and carers who feel that their calls were not heard when they knew that their close relatives were deteriorating and that professionals would not heed their advice, will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what more he will do to ensure that those people have a voice? In that light, has he recently spoken to Marjorie Wallace? At SANE, she has been a constant thorn in the flesh of Ministers of all political parties, but the funding for SANELINE is seriously at risk, as I understand it, and it would be a great tragedy if that service could not continue.

Mr. Milburn: As I understand it, we have recently made available £300,000 to SANE and we are looking at future funding. Yes, Marjorie Wallace does an extremely good job for that organisation and she has a very warm relationship with both the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was trying to be helpful when she described me as less authoritarian than the Home Secretary; I shall have to think about that.
As for the serious is point about carers, the right hon. Lady knows, as does the whole House, that carers do a brilliant job in very difficult circumstances indeed, particularly when caring for those with a severe mental illness. They are often on the receiving end of a great deal of stick from their charges, who are not easy people. Those carers do a first-class job. The White Paper contains a number of provisions to make their lives easier, I hope. In particular, I hope that the right hon. Lady will be pleased that we are now proposing that when a carer of a person with a mental illness is worried, he or she will be able to refer his or her charge to the mental health trust


for assessment. I very much hope that that will help relieve some of the burdens that carers face day in, day out in every community.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for the high priority that is being given to mental health services. Does he agree that the sooner people with signs of mental illness seek help, the better the outcome; and that a measure of the success of the Government policies is a reduction in delays in people's seeking that help? What measures in the White Paper does he consider will assist in achieving that aim?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the sooner the health service can assess those who might have a mental illness and get on with treating them, the better. I am afraid that, as she knows, the deficiencies in the Mental Health Act 1983 have in some cases prevented clinicians from doing their jobs. They have often faced the dreadful problem of treating patients in hospital, discharging them into the community and finding that they then disappear altogether from the services' attention. They know full well that those patients are causing disturbance and nuisance to others and are very possibly a danger to themselves and others, yet those clinicians can do nothing about it, other than wait for the patients' readmission into hospital. Such a pattern has not been good for clinicians and it certainly has not been good for patients or the wider community.
The reforms that we are introducing to expand the services and get crisis intervention teams and outreach teams out of the hospitals and into the community will make a real difference to many patients.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a continuing risk to female in-patients in psychiatric institutions from assaults arising from the continuation of mixed-sex wards? Is he aware that, in December 1997, when the Government talked out my private Member's Bill, by which I sought to address the issue, the right hon. Member for Brent, South, then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, who had responsibility for such matters, assured me:
A central monitoring system is being developed which will provide further regular information on authorities' performance against those objectives—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1331.]
Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why, when I tabled a written question on 25 October to ask if he would list the hospitals that have eliminated mixed-sex wards since May 1997, I received a reply that stated:
At the moment, information on which hospitals in England have eliminated mixed sex accommodation is not available, as data are collected on a health authority basis.—[0fficial Report, 30 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 248W.]
What progress has been made during the long period since my Bill was talked out in achieving an objective which, before being elected, the Government boasted they would make a top priority?

Mr. Milburn: We cannot publish information that we do not have, and the last thing that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do is to make up the data.

Dr. Lewis: The Government ought to have it.

Mr. Milburn: We will get it, and when we do so, we will make it available. This Government, unlike the previous Government, are determined to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I welcome one of the most comprehensive and profound statements on an important issue that we have heard for a very long time? May I press my right hon. Friend on advocacy? Will the Government implement or adapt existing legislation—for example, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Will he accept that, when people leave long-stay hospitals, advocacy would be helpful in preparing proper assessments, involving advocates, social services and so on? I very much welcome the new thinking on prisons, but many people take the view that, in Britain, we send many mentally ill people to prison unnecessarily and that that may well apply to people with learning disabilities.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, as is the House, for the work that he did on behalf of those with disabilities, especially in the 1986 Act, in which I suspect he has more than a vested interest. Advocacy services are very important because we are talking about a very vulnerable group of people and their reintegration into the community is not easy, especially if they have spent time in prison or in specialist mental health services. They need more information on how to contact services, on their legal rights and so on. Although decent advocacy services exist in some parts of the country, their availability is patchy. We propose that people, especially those detained under compulsory powers in our proposed new mental health legislation, should have access to specialist advocacy services. We are consulting on the best way to do that, and we expect to publish the results of that consultation in the spring.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I press further the point on advocacy that was made by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke)? The Secretary of State said that compulsory treatment can go ahead only after a full assessment by doctors and with the agreement of the independent mental health tribunal. Will a professional advocate also be available and will the Secretary of State ensure that resources are available for that purpose?

Mr. Milburn: Yes. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is precisely one of the safeguards that we seek to put in place. Every patient should have access to the specialist advocacy services for which he has argued for many years.

Ms Bridget Prentice: My right hon. Friend may be aware that, in April 1999, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on protection and restraining orders, and it covered the very people referred to in the White Paper. The issue of treatability was one of the problems that I faced, so I very much welcome the fact that he has said that that issue will be examined. Will he go further and tell me that the White Paper will make provision for people with severe personality disorders who recognise that they are a danger either to themselves or to others? What opportunity will such people have to refer themselves, and to whom will they go?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that relates to one of the gaping holes in the existing legislation. Not only have people out there been dangerous, but people in prison who have been dangerous


and who have a severe personality disorder have warned prison officers, on their discharge, that they are danger to others. None the less, they have been discharged. That has got to change for the protection of the individuals concerned, their families and the wider community. In future, as we roll out the new specialist services for those with a severe personality disorder, we shall provide precisely the help, treatment and care that they need.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State share my perception that even the best-intentioned members of the public have no idea how to respond to someone displaying clear signs of personality disorder? Does the taskforce considering the removal of stigma intend to consider public education in that respect?

Mr. Milburn: Yes, and that is one of the jobs that we must do. The hon. Gentleman knows that we spend a certain sum of money each year trying to educate and inform the public about what mental illness means. Although, today, we are concentrating primarily on those with the most severe mental illnesses—they are sometimes the greatest threat to themselves and to others—overwhelmingly those with mental health problems do not fall into that category. We must continue to make and reinforce that point, so that the public get the right idea and not the wrong one.

Laura Moffatt: I very much welcome today's announcement. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the saddest experiences is to watch someone daily losing touch with reality when the professionals are not able to intervene? [Interruption.] I knew that that was coming, but this is a serious subject. Sometimes health teams cannot intervene and take part in active treatment.
The proposals announced will allow for the compulsory administration of drugs through the community health teams. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that those teams will need much help and advice when taking part in such work in conjunction with the acute services? The sensitive relationship that they have with patients might become slightly different, so we should consult those teams on how we carry out the new arrangements.

Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is an expert on this subject, and I assure her that there will be the comprehensive training that she seeks. It will be necessary, because there will be a big change in the law and, therefore, big changes to services and the way in which clinicians relate to patients. Overwhelmingly, clinicians will conclude that we are taking the right approach, because they are as frustrated as anyone else about their inability to get the right care and treatment, including medication, to those who need it most.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although many of his proposals are welcome, there will be concerns about the tendency to seek to minimise risk to the public to such an extent that it impedes civil liberties? In particular, I refer to the redefinition of the term "treatability". When

unfortunate and tragic incidents occur, there is always an inquiry and Ministers have to appear on "Newsnight" for an inquisition and the press and the public think that there is a higher risk than actually exists. Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be some concern about his proposals on the basis of the balance between civil liberties and the reduction of risk?

Mr. Milburn: No one is saying—and no one should say—that we can remove every risk: we cannot, but we can do a lot better. The 1,000 suicides and 40 homicides a year involving people who have been in contact with mental health services in the previous 12 months is hardly a catalogue of success. Indeed, it is a catalogue of failure for them, their families and the broader community.
We have a choice. Either we can stand back and do nothing, which is what the 1983 Act provides for, or we can take appropriate action. Of course we must get the balance right between protecting the patient and protecting the public, but we must get away from the idea that one necessarily runs counter to the other. The debate is not about that. The best solution is to offer the patient enhanced protection by introducing more safeguards and, at the same time, to better protect the public.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome the announcement, but will the measures cover child and adolescent mental health services? In particular, will they address the tragedies that occur in young offenders institutions where so many young people have lost or taken their lives?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend will be aware that suicide is a major cause of death among young men. We need to take more action to improve our child and adolescent mental health services. We have begun to do that and we will do more in future. I can confirm that there are provisions to help safeguard the interests of children in the mental health services.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have a constituent in Holloway prison who, according to a ministerial reply today, is due for release on 28 December. Her father is desperately worried because she is a sick woman. She is a danger to herself and the public and could well cause injury or death to herself or someone else. There is no provision for her and she will be back on the streets of Thanet by the end of the year.
With respect to the Secretary of State, we do not need lectures on what has or has not been done in the past. The Government have been in power for three years and talked out a Bill that was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) three years ago. Can the Secretary of State give us a sense of the Government's priority and tell us when the legislation, which I welcome, will be introduced?

Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman were in fairer mood he would concede that we are making progress on mental health services. He knows that when I became Secretary of State. I declared three clinical priorities—cancer, coronary heart disease and mental health services. I included mental health services because they deal with so many people and because there were so many gaps in provision when we came to office. The case that he describes justifies the measures announced today. People


who revolve in and out of the criminal justice or the hospital system sometimes receive inadequate care and treatment. Frankly, we do not have the legal powers to ensure that the decent care and treatment that they need are provided. Legislation will be introduced as soon as there is parliamentary time.

Fiona Mactaggart: Like other hon. Members. I welcome the statement. However, I want to ensure that it is delivered properly. This morning, I had a meeting with SHOC—Slough Homelessness Our Concern—which works with homeless people in my constituency, especially those who have had a dual diagnosis. Those people are anti-social and will not use most care services because they find them difficult to relate to. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that voluntary organisations such as SHOC, will be given a key role in delivering the strategy; otherwise, we will not be able to reach the parts that we need to reach?

Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. Mental health services are not the exclusive preserve of the national health service. They also involve social services, housing agencies and the criminal justice system. In addition, many voluntary and community organisations have an important role to play in every constituency, including mine and that of my hon. Friend. The strategy in the national service framework and today's White Paper is an all-inclusive approach that involves the voluntary and statutory sectors. Unless we get such organisations working more as one, the gaps in provision that hon. Members on both sides of the House have highlighted, will continue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance and draw to your attention and that of the House a matter that will be of interest and concern to all right hon. and hon. Members: impersonation of a Member of this House. A website has been set up in the name of Bob Russell MP. I assure you that it is not I who have set it up. Inquiries reveal that the website has been set up by a leading member of a political party in my constituency of which I am not a member. Can you guide Members on what can be done in a clear case of impersonation?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with me about this matter, but I am grateful to him for raising it as a point of order because it enables me to place on record my strong disapproval of what has occurred. I do not expect officers or employees of political parties to seek to register on the internet names of members of other parties with a view to misleading the public who seek access to such members' websites. I expect all political parties represented in this House to take steps to ensure that no such activity is undertaken by them or on their behalf.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you were kind enough to call me during Prime Minister's questions, this point of order can hardly be interpreted as a point of grievance. I ask you to reflect over Christmas whether when the House agreed that Prime Minister's Question Time should last for 30 minutes on a Wednesday it was envisaged that, for 18 minutes, there would be what one might call a Punch and Judy show between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister? A Leader of the Opposition surely has rights to question the Government, but would it not be better if, when feeling strongly on an issue, he tabled a private notice question, which, given that it was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, you as Speaker would probably hardly refuse?
As I say, this is not a point of grievance because I was lucky enough to be called at Prime Minister's questions. That is why I am emboldened to raise the issue now. Is it not unfair on other Members, who, heaven knows, have few opportunities to question the Prime Minister, that such exchanges should go on quite so long? I am not complaining in any way about the Speaker; I really am not. The issue is whether the right to ask six questions, which you inherited, with long statements from the Leader of the Opposition on his policy, comprises the right way of going about parliamentary scrutiny. Could you reflect on that over Christmas?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I made a statement before Prime Minister's Question Time recently in which I asked for short, sharp questions and short, sharp replies. I will not answer all the hon. Gentleman's points except to say that I am keen to be able to call more Back Benchers on both sides of the House during Prime Minister's Question Time. That might help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that it would be for the


good order of the House in the forthcoming debate for Members from parties that have received very large subventions from those who support and promote the Hunting Bill to announce that fact, particularly drawing attention to their interest in receiving further money as a result of the way in which they speak and vote on the Bill?

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no control over political parties, but all Members of Parliament know where their duties lie in respect of personal pecuniary interests: it is each hon. Member's duty to record such interests.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that it is also undesirable for groups associated with a political party to attempt to hijack the websites of other political parties, as has happened in respect of www.newlabour.co.uk, which has been hijacked by a group of Conservatives? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. It takes me all my time to protect hon. Members, not political parties.

BILLS PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS (SHARE OPTIONS)

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson, presented a Bill to make provision about the payment of National Insurance Contributions in respect of share options and similar rights obtained by persons as directors or employees during the period beginning with 6th April 1999 and ending with 19th May 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 8].

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE BILL

Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Hilary Armstrong and Mr. John Denham, presented a Bill to amend the law about the National Health Service; to provide for the exercise of functions by care trusts under partnership arrangements under the Health Act 1999 and to make further provision in relation to such arrangements; to make further provision in relation to social care services; to make provision in relation to the supply or other processing of patient information; to extend the categories of appropriate practitioners in relation to prescription-only medicinal products; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 9].

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Hunting Bill

Order for Second reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Home Secretary rises, it might be helpful to inform the House that it will not be appreciated if hon. Ladies and Gentlemen approach the Chair to ask where they are in the order of speaking.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You might already have made an announcement, and I apologise if I missed it, but there are two reasoned amendments on the Order Paper and I wondered whether you had selected either of them and, if not, whether you could make that clear, because there are interests behind both.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not selected either of the amendments. While I am on my feet, I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Straw: As the House is all too well aware, when a Minister moves that a Bill be read a Second time it is customary for that Minister to extol the virtues of every page of the Bill and explain why the policy to which the Bill gives effect is so desirable. That is not appropriate in the current case because, although the Bill is a Government Bill, its content has not been determined principally by the Government; rather, it contains three separate and mutually exclusive options suggested by three different interest groups.
As the House is aware, hunting is an issue that arouses great concern and strong passions among many, although by no means all, people. The volumes of newsprint and the fact that the Home Office has received more than 100,000 letters on the subject since the general election attest to that. Hunting also attracts a great deal of attention in this House and another place—indeed, there have been 22 private Members' Bills relating to hunting in the past 20 years.
It is crucial to note that almost all those Bills failed because they lacked parliamentary time, not because the majority of parliamentarians were opposed to them. The truth is that Parliament has never had a proper opportunity to give legislative effect to its wishes on the question of hunting.
As I explained to the House on 12 June, the Government decided to bring forward a Bill so that the will of Parliament could prevail, with the aim that the issue could properly be resolved. Before doing so, we asked Lord Burns to head an inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales. The committee reported in June, and I am extremely grateful to Lord Burns and to his team for producing such a clear and objective statement of the facts surrounding hunting, which I hope will inform the House's deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that Lord Burns recognised that

the pattern of hunting in Wales is somewhat different from the pattern in England? Why, therefore, does the Bill make no provision for there to be some change in policy, even on the margins, to be implemented by the National Assembly for Wales?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it is appropriate for the House or the National Assembly for Wales to deal with primary legislation. The position is clear: it is for the House to deal with primary legislation relating to Wales as well as to England on aspects of the criminal law. That was accepted by the House and the other place, which is of clear importance, and by the people of Wales when they voted for the devolution settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Burns report referred to differences in Wales and differences in the pattern of hunting between upland and lowland areas, which apply not only to Wales. At present, one of the three schemes set out in the Bill would not distinguish between the different circumstances that obtain in Wales—mainly in upland areas—and other upland areas, and lowland areas. Were that option to go into Committee and on to Report, it would be open to Members who represent parts of Wales or any other parts of the United Kingdom to table amendments to take account of the differences identified by Lord Burns.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, there is great pressure on the time available between now and 10 o'clock. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will excuse me if I do not go into my usual arrangement, which is to respond to virtually every intervention that is offered.

Mr. Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Wales. Hunting is a matter of deep controversy in our constituencies. We are expected to exercise our conscience because the issue affects our constituencies. Is it right or fair that when dealing with a matter of deep controversy, Scottish Members will be voting while we have no right to vote on the future of hunting in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman do the decent thing and advise Scottish Members similarly to do the decent thing and abstain on any future votes on hunting?

Mr. Straw: No, I will certainly not do so. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the powers of this place and the other place in respect of Scotland. First, the powers of the Scottish Parliament derive entirely from the Parliament of Westminster. The Parliament of Westminster can at any stage, if it wishes—I do not advise this course—change the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Parliament is palpably and legally subordinate to the Westminster Parliament.
Secondly, I have never accepted the political arithmetic of the West Lothian question, despite my huge regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as his constituency is now called. The best explanation, which I endorse, of why that seductive political arithmetic does not add up is provided by the distinguished constitutionalist, Vernon Bogdanor, in an essay which he wrote two or three years ago. I understand the attraction


of this device to a party that has no representation in Scotland and Wales. However, if the Conservative party were in power, it would come to exactly the same grief as Gladstone did 130 years ago when he wrestled for many months with the so-called in-and-out question. As well as being intellectually impossible to resolve, it caused his Government to collapse.
I happen to believe in the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and believe that every Member elected to that Parliament has a right to legislate, subject to previous legislation, in respect of any part of the United Kingdom. I also make the partisan point that I do not remember such arguments being advanced when 16 Conservative and Unionist Members represented Northern Ireland here despite the existence of the Stormont Parliament, which had more powers than has the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend give way on a historical point?

Mr. Straw: No, but, if I make progress, I shall give way on a historical point if my hon. Friend intervenes later.
I said that I am very grateful to Lord Burns, which provoked a couple of interesting interventions. We decided to adopt the multi-options procedure because it allows all sides the opportunity to put their point of view and have it sensibly debated. In doing so, we have drawn on the parallel and the good example of the previous Administration in respect of Sunday trading.
In the Parliaments between 1979 and 1997, I recall only one Government Bill being defeated on Second Reading—the 1986 Shops Bill. A lot of discussion about how the matter could be resolved followed, and the previous Administration—sensibly, in my judgment—introduced a multi-option Government Bill and gave Ministers as well as other Members a free vote. The matter was finally resolved. I say that notwithstanding the fact that I was in a minority in voting against the preferred option. I happen to think that that was a sensible way through and we have adopted the parallel.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for stressing the multi-option point because when the House previously discussed outlawing such practices—bear baiting in 1835, and cock fighting in 1849—there was a straight up and down vote. On a historical point, is he aware that the greatest foxhunter in British history was the Duke of Wellington? Every Friday during the Peninsular wars, the fighting stopped so that he could go foxhunting, save that there were no foxes in Iberia. He organised his hunt, but there was no necessity to kill and disembowel a poor, innocent animal. Why cannot the foxhunting community follow the Iron Duke's example?

Mr. Straw: Well, I have to say that that particular example is—

Mr. John Bercow: Most illuminating.

Mr. Straw: It is most illuminating, but not within my knowledge. My hon. Friend will want to make his point should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is, of course, of interest to the House.
Before I discuss the provisions—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Not at the moment, but, if I make progress, I may do so.
Before I discuss the provisions, may I explain in more detail the procedure that we propose to adopt, subject to the agreement of the House? We are debating whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and obviously nothing more than that. If, as I hope and expect, the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will be debated in Committee. We propose that the first part of that debate, when the key choice between the options will be made, will take place on the Floor of the House so that all Members can participate and, of course, vote.
As Members will know, the core of the Bill is in three schedules, each of which is triggered by a clause. Should the House agree, the debate in Committee of the whole House will be on which of those clauses should stand part of the Bill. We envisage a single common debate followed by three votes. It will be important for Members to vote for the option that they favour, but also against those they do not. I am advised that that is how the procedure will work. It is certainly simpler than that for the election of the Speaker, but, for the House to come to a clear view, it will be important for all Members to vote for one choice and against two, if that is their wish.
Once the whole House has made a decision on which of the options it favours, we envisage that the Bill will move into Standing Committee upstairs in the usual way, and details of the chosen option can be considered by the Committee.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman is a Whip, I will give way in a moment.
Subject to the agreement of the House, Report and Third Reading will take place in the usual way, and thereafter the Bill will proceed to the other place.
At this point, I shall make an important commitment. Again, it follows the practice adopted in the case of the Sunday Trading Bill. The Government will table as amendments in the other place any of the options that this House has removed from the Bill, to ensure that the other place is given exactly the same choice between the options that this House enjoyed. That is critical for each House to be able to reach a balanced view of the options.
I now give way to the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. On the Order Paper today, there is also a timetable motion. How can we decide on that motion, until we know which option the House has chosen? The chosen option will be important in determining the way the Committee decides to proceed.

Mr. Straw: The House agreed that the timetable motion and the procedure, motion should be taken after Second Reading. That is sensible; it is a matter for the House. I took that view in opposition, which explains why there were so


few guillotine motions when I was shadow Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition. Timetable motions are for the convenience of all hon. Members. That is not a matter for this occasion. That debate has taken place and procedure motions are now a matter of fact.

Mr. Peter Luff: The Home Secretary—inadvertently, I think—suggested something that is not the case. Hon. Members will vote first on supervision, then on regulation and subsequently on prohibition, so it will be open to them to vote for both supervision and regulation, and not to choose just one of the three options.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to pick me up on that. I was suggesting that, for the sake of clarity, it would be a good idea for hon. Members to vote for one of the three clauses and against the other two. However, that does not stop the House coming to a different view. It is open to the House to vote for all three clauses, and a considerable dog's breakfast would result. I would not advise that course.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether there is any truth in the report in one of today's national newspapers that if the Bill does not complete its passage through Parliament in this Session and a general election intervenes, the Government are committed to using the Parliament Acts in the next Parliament to make sure that the Bill, in whatever form, becomes law?

Mr. Straw: My answer to that is the same as my answer to any such question during the Second Reading of a Bill: we make our decision on the use of the Parliament Act in the light of events. We have not even had Second Reading of the Bill, still less a rejection by the other place.
Report and Third Reading will take place in the usual way and thereafter the Bill will proceed to the other place. I have given a commitment in that regard.
I shall deal now with the content of the three schedules. As I indicated, the three schedules were proposed by the three main interest groups—the Countryside Alliance, the Middle Way Group and Deadline 2000. Each of those groups had full access to Home Office Ministers and officials, and each of the options has been professionally drafted by parliamentary counsel.
I place on record my appreciation, which is shared by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for the positive and constructive way in which the interest groups have approached their task in producing options that were workable for them. I know that each of the interest groups has supporters in the House and, should they be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, those hon. Members will take the opportunity to explain the particular benefits of their option. I shall give a brief and, I hope, factual description of what each of the three schedules would do.
Clause 1 and schedule 1 were proposed by the Countryside Alliance and are based on the principle of the self-regulation of hunting. The Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, known as ISAH, was set up at the

end of last year. Its members are the chairmen of the various hunting associations, such as the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the National Coursing Club and the Masters of Deerhounds Association. ISAH oversees its member organisations' rules and codes of conduct, and has the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on hunts and clubs. It also has the power to visit and inspect hunts. The cost of ISAH is borne by the member organisations.
Membership of ISAH, or of an organisation affiliated to it, is voluntary, and anyone who wants to hunt other than under its auspices is free to do so. That would continue under the option in schedule 1. The schedule, however, contains provisions to encourage as much hunting as possible to be undertaken under the ISAH regulatory umbrella.
Both the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 contain a number of offences relating to cruelty to animals. At present, both Acts contain specific exemptions in relation to hunting, so a person cannot be prosecuted under those provisions if his actions took place during lawful hunting or coursing. The schedule provides that in future the exemption will apply only to supervised hunting—that is, hunting undertaken under the ISAH regulatory umbrella. The Countryside Alliance believes that that provides an incentive for everyone who goes hunting to come under the auspices of ISAH, to be bound by its code of practice and to be subject to its disciplinary procedures.
I should make one thing clear immediately. The Countryside Alliance does not accept that those who undertake properly organised hunting are committing an act of cruelty that would be liable to prosecution under the two Acts to which I have referred—although I appreciate that not all Members would agree. What the Countryside Alliance fears is the bringing of malicious legal actions. It therefore believes that people will want to enjoy the continued benefit of the statutory exemption, and to come under the ISAH umbrella.
The second point I should make, in fairness to the Countryside Alliance, is that while the alliance has been helpful in presenting that option, it is quick to emphasise that it does not reflect the entirety of its position. The alliance does not believe it is right to deal with hunting in isolation. It would prefer a complete overhaul of our animal welfare legislation, making it unlawful to inflict, by any means, unnecessary suffering on any mammal.
Clause 2 and schedule 2 were proposed by the Middle Way Group, which is led by three Members of Parliament, one from each of the main parties: the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). The clause and schedule are based on the premise that hunting with dogs should be allowed to continue, but that it should be a statutorily licensed activity. Anyone who wished to hunt would therefore need to apply for a licence. Licences would be issued by a newly created non-departmental public body known as the Hunting Authority.
The Hunting Authority would consist of between seven and 11 members. Some would represent the main interested parties—such as landowners, farmers and animal welfare groups—but the majority would be selected precisely because they had no vested interest in the question. As well as issuing licences, the authority


would be required to draw up codes of practice to govern the main hunting activities, and would be able to attach appropriate terms and conditions to licences.
The cost of the Hunting Authority would come from the income generated by licence fees. The intention is that it should be self-financing—in any year, its income from licence fees should match its expenditure.
The authority would be able to appoint inspectors to visit hunts. It would also be given the power to provide training courses and to set examinations for those wishing to apply for licences, although I understand that the proponents of this option do not envisage its doing that, at least initially. No doubt they will expand on that if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Clause 3 and schedule 3 were proposed by Deadline 2000. Deadline 2000 is a consortium consisting of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It effectively provides for a complete ban on hunting with dogs by creating criminal offences. Anyone guilty of illegal hunting would be liable to a fine of up to £5,000. In the Government's view, such a level of penalties is proportionate and sufficient.
There are a few limited exceptions, which are set out in the schedule. I think that Deadline 2000 would want me to stress their limited nature. Each exception comes with conditions. Only if all the relevant conditions in schedule 3 are met would hunting be lawful. Deadline 2000 have made it clear that those exceptions are not to be seen as loopholes and would apply only in limited circumstances.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary confirm that if those financial penalties were not paid, the penalty would be imprisonment? The House has previous experience of issues touching people's conscience and the consequences when fines are not paid.

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if a fine is unpaid and other penalties imposed in lieu are not observed either, the ultimate sanction which the courts exercise—although less often than they used to—is imprisonment.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Straw: One further point, and then I must make progress.

Mr. Garnier: If schedule 3 becomes law, how many additional policemen will the Home Secretary need?

Mr. Straw: I have a comment from the Association of Chief Police Officers, although not to hand. I am happy for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with that in his winding-up speech. From memory, I believe that ACPO thinks that the likely impact on police resources of the ban on hunting proposed in schedule 3 will probably not be any greater than the current impact that results from the disorder caused by those who seek to interfere with hunting. The general approach is therefore likely to be neutral.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I am sorry, but I will not give way.
The House knows that I condemn utterly the disorder that is created in an attempt to disrupt hunting, which is a lawful activity. If the House and the other place decide to accept schedule 3 and clause 3 and they become law, the House, across parties, will take a similar view of any other illegality.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: rose—

Mr. John Gummer: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I need to make progress.
That is the core of the Bill. There is only one other provision that I need to explain: clause 4, which deals with commencement.
The rules of the House provide that it is not possible to introduce a Bill with internally contradictory provisions. That is why we have had to include a fairly complicated commencement provision, providing for the commencement of one of the schedules and the repeal of the other two. Let me make it clear to the House that if it picks one of the options, we will introduce an amendment to provide that that option should take effect one year after Royal Assent. That will, we feel, give those involved in hunting an adequate opportunity to make whatever arrangements they feel are necessary, whichever option is chosen. If the middle way option is chosen, and schedule 2 emerges as the chosen option, we will need transitional provisions to ensure that the Hunting Authority is up and running and issuing licences before it becomes unlawful to hunt without a licence.

Mr. Mike Hancock: rose—

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I need to make progress.
None of us, I am sure, underestimates how passionately people on both sides of the debate feel. That feeling is illustrated by attendance in the Chamber today. Nevertheless, by introducing a multi-option Bill the Government hope that all sides will feel that they have had a fair chance to put their point of view and debate this most contentious of issues in a sensible and rational fashion.
This is not an issue that follows traditional party lines. There are supporters and opponents of hunting—and supporters and opponents of clause 2—in all the main parties. No one demonstrates that point better than the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whose views, I think it is fair to say, are not fully endorsed by everyone who takes the Conservative Whip.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his courtesy in receiving delegations on the matter. Does he agree that, in the event of a ban, that wicked proposal would separate liberty from justice? Does he agree that that is thoroughly undesirable and bad?

Mr. Straw: I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. I understand the strength of his feeling and I respect him for it. Opinions differ very much, and it is for the House and the other place to reach a balanced judgment.
Although, as was illustrated by that last exchange, hunting is an issue on which some hold passionate views, as it happens I am not one of those people. During my 21 years in the House I have never voted on any Bill on hunting, but as I am the Minister sponsoring the Bill, I have had to consider the issue in greater detail than would have otherwise been the case. I have been pressed on a number of occasions outside the House and in interviews to say what my approach is. On each occasion I said that I wished to inform Parliament first and this I now do. My own thinking has been much informed by Lord Burns's report. Today I shall vote for the Bill to receive a Second Reading so that the House can come to a substantive decision on the options in the new year.
When and if the Bill receives a Second Reading and is considered in a Committee of the whole House, I shall vote for clause 2, which offers a scheme of regulation, and against both clause 1, which provides for self-regulation, and clause 3, which involves an outright ban. Let me emphasise, however, that the decision rests with each individual Member, that every Minister and Parliamentary Private Secretary is as entitled to their own opinion as any other hon. Member, and that the view that I have expressed is entirely a personal opinion.
We believe that the time has come to deal with the issue of hunting with dogs once and for all. The Bill allows Parliament that opportunity and I commend it to the House.

Mr. David Lidington: As the Home Secretary has made clear, this is a Bill on which opinions across the Chamber differ strongly. As he noted, I am delighted to be joined—if not supported—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She and I have agreed that on this occasion we stand as one in our agreement to differ strongly, but amicably, about the content of the Bill.
The Home Secretary has made his position clear. Every Conservative Member will have a free vote when we divide the House on the Bill later tonight. For my own part, I believe that the Bill is misguided I and unnecessary. I intend to vote against it on Second Reading. If it receives a Second Reading and goes into Committee, I expect that we shall debate the various options in detail. My intention would be to prefer clause 1 to clause 2 and, if it came to a choice, clause 2 to clause 3.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: I shall give way briefly, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that I want to allow time for the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak.

Dr. Palmer: I shall not detain the hon. Gentleman for long. Just to clarify, is he saying that he would prefer the Bill to be rejected outright, including the pathetic self-regulation proposal from the Countryside Alliance?

Mr. Lidington: Yes. I do not believe that legislation of this nature is required. If the Government were to propose comprehensive measures on animal welfare, such as an overhaul of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, I would

want to look at them carefully in particular contexts, but the measure that we are debating this afternoon is not justified at all by the evidence presented by the Burns inquiry about animal welfare and the prevention of cruelty. The key issue of principle that the House must consider is how we balance the duty that each of us has as a legislator to defend individual liberty, with our duty to shape laws that will prevent cruelty to animals and enhance animal welfare.
Other issues are also relevant. The evidence may help us to make our judgment by tipping the scales in one direction or another. There is the impact that a ban would have on jobs and on the rural economy at a time of acute agricultural recession. There is the contribution that hunting makes to conservation and to the preservation of a diverse environment for many plant and animal species. There is the central importance of hunts to social and cultural life in many of our rural areas, especially the most remote areas of England and Wales.
All those issues are intrinsically important, but in this debate they are secondary to the fundamental question of how we resolve the tension between human freedom and animal welfare. We must ask ourselves whether the Bill would place oppressive restrictions on human freedom. Frankly, if Parliament were to decide deliberately to take away the livelihood or the lawful recreation of even one man or woman in this country, that should cause real heart-searching in the House. Hunting involves large numbers of people.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and job losses. I remember that not so long ago, when the Tories were in power, they closed 30 pits, which cost 60,000 miners' jobs. Conservative Members went through the Lobby with not a murmur about job losses.

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman would carry more weight in the House if he were prepared to recognise that, although he may have strong feelings on one side of the debate, this measure will have an acutely damaging impact on individuals, families and communities in many different parts of the country. He does no service to his argument by disregarding or dismissing the truth of that central proposition.
The Bill will affect many people. In the Government's own words, from page 3 of the regulatory impact assessment:
The numbers of people registered as subscribers, members and supporters
of hunts
is estimated to be 67,000. On popular days many more may hunt.
To that total we should add the many others who do not take part in hunting but who nevertheless support hunt social functions, point-to-point meetings and similar activities.
If the House should pause before depriving people of their recreation, it should hesitate still further before passing a law that will quite deliberately make it unlawful for people to continue in work that is presently lawful. The Government's own assessment is that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be at stake if a


ban on hunting were to be enacted. Their assessment also makes it clear that, because some of those jobs are seasonal or part-time:
the number of people involved may be significantly higher.
I expect that it is true that those job losses, as the Government's assessment puts it, relate to an activity that is
so small as to be almost invisible in terms of national aggregates.
However, being small in terms of a national aggregate is precious little comfort for a young father living in a tied house who knows that Parliament is debating whether to deprive him and his family of their home and livelihood.
If the House were debating a proposal by a private sector employer to send out notices to quit or notices of redundancy to hundreds, or thousands, of our fellow citizens 10 days before Christmas, many Labour Members who are cheering for the Bill would be denouncing that employer as a heartless and ruthless exponent—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. It is clear that, at the moment, the hon. Gentleman has no intention of giving way.

Mr. Lidington: If people are trying to run a rural business, and depend for much of their revenue on hunting or on people involved in it, it is small comfort for them to be told that they do not figure in the statistics. The outlook is especially hard for people and businesses in remote rural areas, who are already suffering from a severe agricultural recession. Alternative work and customers are not easy to find. The cost of the Bill is real in terms both of human freedom and of human livelihoods, so evidence to suggest that hunting is unacceptably cruel would have to be overwhelming, and based on substantial and compelling results, to justify imposing a ban.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As my hon. Friend knows, I represent a rural area. There is no doubt that some of my constituents will face job losses if option 3 is agreed. Many of them live in villages and are already hard pressed to find a local bobby wandering around. Even Clitheroe has policing problems, which are caused by overstretch. If option 3 is agreed to and hunting with hounds is banned, will the police not be even further stretched in trying to monitor what is occurring in our villages while also pursuing the people who will have become criminals?

Mr. Lidington: The Bill is the wrong priority for Parliament, and its enforcement would be the wrong priority for our police, whom citizens want to be out catching burglars, street robbers and other criminals.
It is not enough for advocates of the Bill to state merely that they disapprove of hunting, and it is even more inadequate to say that they disapprove of the people who take part in it. To quote the Burns report, the key test is
whether legislators could point to unnecessary suffering or some other reference point beyond mere disapproval, to reflect the general interese…

Those of us who oppose the Bill must take seriously the Burns report's conclusion that hunting, in the famous phrase,
seriously compromises the welfare of the fox
or other hunted animal. However, the welfare of an animal is seriously compromised by any action that results in its death.

Mr. Grieve: We live in a pluralist society. As such, must not we tolerate all sort of things that we might individually find bizarre? For instance, the practice of halal butchery is allowed in this country, and it is an exception to regulations that are otherwise imposed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for hunting to be singled out, when the Government are prepared to extend courtesy to practices about which pluralism is the very word that they use?

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Over the years, animal welfare lobby groups have argued passionately that the law should be changed to restrict or outlaw halal and kosher butchery. Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have rightly resisted those pressures on the grounds that religious liberty needs to be defended as a first principle in a plural and free society.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Will he end his speech by giving an undertaking to the House and the country that, should we have the misfortune to see another Conservative Government, they would reintroduce hunting with dogs?

Mr. Lidington: My intention, and the intention of the majority of my colleagues, is to resist this ill-judged, unnecessary Bill. We shall base our arguments on its demerits and on the lack of any compelling arguments for enacting it.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend was diverted from the subject of religious slaughter. Is he aware that, when it was my duty to make a decision on that matter, I objected strongly to religious slaughter and to the harm done to the animals, but I believed it right to ensure that, in a pluralist society, people who feel strongly about something should, in all circumstances except the most extreme, have certain rights? It is a serious matter to decide that one type of person may not have those rights, whereas another type may. Labour Members—especially the more voluble ones—should not assume that this is a simple matter. It is a serious matter, deeply concerned with freedom, which, if carried through, will threaten every minority in the country.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend speaks from the heart, and he speaks the truth. Were a ban to be introduced, it would be wrong in itself and would set a dangerous precedent for the way in which a temporary majority—of whatever political colour—in the House of Commons can treat a minority of its fellow citizens who are lawfully carrying out a practice of which that temporary majority happens to disapprove.

Mr. James Paice: May I take my hon. Friend back to the cursory way in which the


Home Secretary responded earlier to the point about police numbers? In Cambridgeshire, as in much of East Anglia, a form of illegal hunting already goes on regularly: illegal coursing on land over which those concerned do not have permission to hunt. The Cambridgeshire constabulary cannot respond to the calls made to them to deal with that activity, so it will continue to take place. There is no doubt that the police will not have the resources to enforce option 3, if the House decides to vote for it.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the arguments that he is using today in defence of hunting are exactly the same as those used by Members of Parliament in the 1820s in defence of bull baiting? Is there not something to be said for the idea that the House should represent the interests of animals? They have interests as well, much though Conservative Members might mock the idea.

Mr. Lidington: I do not disparage the hon. Gentleman's consistent defence over many years of his point of view on this matter. However, I part company with him over the idea that, when it is proposed that Parliament use the coercive power of the law and the enforcement authorities to make illegal a practice that has previously been perfectly legal, there needs to be—[Interruption.] I am making a point that addresses what the hon. Gentleman said. There needs to be compelling, conclusive evidence of the cruelty to which the supporters of a ban allude—whereas to say that the evidence supplied to the Burns inquiry and published in its report is inconclusive is an underestimate. The evidence in the report shows that the case for a ban cannot be sustained on the grounds either of animal welfare or of preventing cruelty.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comparison should be made not with bear baiting or cock fighting but with fishing and game shooting? Is it not true that there are no essential differences of principle between foxhunting, angling and game shooting? They are all the same; we should defend them all.

Mr. Lidington: Not only is my right hon. and learned Friend correct on that point, but part of the open agenda of some of the animal rights groups is that, having achieved—as they hope to do—a ban on hunting with hounds, they would move on to attack game shooting and fishing. They will adopt a new target as each successive one is achieved.
Burns concludes that it is not enough to ask about the impact on animal welfare of hunting with hounds. In considering the evidence on alleged cruelty, we must also assess the welfare advantages and disadvantages of other methods of animal control. The report shows repeatedly that when the committee examined the evidence, it concluded that there were serious problems with every proposed alternative. To ban stag hunting would meant that more deer were stalked and killed by less skilful shooters. The report notes that in that case, "wounding rates would increase". More wounded animals would linger and suffer for many days if a ban on hunting were enacted.
Burns concludes that both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications. The report favours the lamping method of fox control—dazzling a fox at night before shooting it with a high-velocity rifle. The report concludes that on welfare grounds that method is preferable to hunting with hounds; it does not make that statement about any other method of control.
The report notes some serious problems with the lamping method, however. It needs good vehicular access; the method is unsuitable for uneven terrain, woodland or scrub. The National Farmers Union points out that the Burns analysis ignores the problem of lamp-shy foxes. It would be far from a panacea, even in areas where it might be practical to employ it. Nor could one ignore—[Interruption.] If Labour Members are attracted by that method of control, they must address the risks posed to human safety. In a rather euphemistic phrase, the Burns report states that
night shooting can give rise to concern on the part of those living in the area.
I suspect that the last thing that the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues want is to see a large number of people tramping through the countryside with high-velocity rifles, lethal at a distance of up to 2 miles, at a time when the Government have enacted legislation to encourage more people to roam freely across that same countryside. That method of control simply will not work; and as Burns concluded on page 119 of his report:
None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective.
I argue that Burns underestimates the damage to animal welfare that a ban on hunting would cause. Many farmers and landowners tolerate foxes and deer on their land, despite the damage that may be done to crops or livestock, because they—the farmers and landowners concerned—enjoy or support the continuation of hunting. It is my belief that if hunting were banned, many more animals would be shot, snared or trapped, with all the drawbacks in terms of animal welfare that those methods of control would bring. In my view, the case for a ban on animal welfare grounds is shaky in the extreme; it is far from the compelling case that is needed to justify the Bill.
So why is the Bill before us? In part it comes, no doubt, from Ministers' wish to provide a sop to throw to Labour Back Benchers who are increasingly frustrated at the Government's failure to deliver on other aspects of their programme. We have had from the Home Secretary today, expressed in his usual emollient style, a profession of Government neutrality on the Bill, but that sits rather oddly with the guillotine motion that is already on the Order Paper for today. It sits even more oddly with the threat—which, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, was briefed to one of the newspapers—that if the Government failed to get their way in this Parliament they would seek, if they had the opportunity, to use the Parliament Acts to ram the Bill into law.
I cannot help wondering—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Lidington: I give way, for the last time.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is aware that if the unfortunate should happen and part III of schedule 3


were selected, we would face the introduction of powers for vehicles to be seized, homes searched and animals arrested, merely on the suspicion of a constable. Does my hon. Friend consider that that power is proportionate, or does he think that it violates the fundamental tenet of liberal tradition in this country—that a person is innocent until proven guilty?

Mr. Lidington: If we are, in the event, faced with schedule 3, serious questions will need to be asked about the definitions of offences, the extent of police powers, the penalties that the schedule includes, and the statutory defences for which it provides. However, I believe that today we should concentrate on the argument of principle.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lidington: I regret that I will not give way again.
The Government's priorities are gravely wrong. The Hunting Bill was not only included in the Government programme but introduced as one of the first Bills in a new Session of Parliament. And yet the Government have not found time for an adoption Bill, which must now wait for the Private Members' Bills procedure. They have no time for a Bill to enhance vaccine damage payments, of which the Secretary of State for Social Security said on 27 June:
We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity.—[Official Report, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 719.]
The Government have no space, either, for a Bill, other than in draft form, to confiscate the assets of organised criminals, about which the Home Secretary told the Social Market Foundation on 8 June:
We aim to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Even yesterday, the Minister for Public Health promised that the Government would introduce a Bill to embed in primary legislation a ban on human reproductive cloning. She said that the Government
will do so as parliamentary time allows—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 220.]
Those Bills deserve higher priority than the Hunting Bill, and far more compelling arguments can be made in their support. The most charitable explanation is that the Government have a peculiar and warped sense of legislative priority. Those of us who have more sceptical and suspicious minds might think that this is an effort by the Labour party, which has received large sums from some animal rights campaign groups, to show that it is now delivering the legislation in return for the cash that it has received.
The Bill represents a major attack on the freedom of a large minority of our fellow citizens. Its supporters have been unable to provide compelling evidence that a ban on hunting, and the reliance on shooting or snaring instead, would enhance animal welfare or reduce cruelty. The Bill is intolerant and illiberal, and it deserves to be rejected in the Lobby tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I welcome the introduction of the Bill by the Government, and I will support its Second Reading. Of course, this Second Reading would not necessarily have had to take place now if certain Opposition Members had not blocked previous private Members' Bills. I respect the Government's neutrality on the issue, but I welcome their commitment to ensure that the matter is brought to an end. In November 1997, 411 Members voted to ban hunting with dogs. After that result, it was inconceivable that the issue would go away. The House had spoken; it demanded action and, today, we have the response—a Government Bill backed by a timetable motion.
Like the first two hon. Members who spoke, I shall state which option I prefer. I will vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs. It is all too easy, given the emotion surrounding the debate, to get carried away and say that all hunt supporters are bloodthirsty barbarians or hooray Henrys; they are not, and it would be wrong to do so. It is equally wrong to suggest that all anti-hunt supporters do not listen, are townies and fail to understand the countryside. The Burns inquiry has provided all sides of opinion with considerable food for thought.
I hope that the debate will reflect the considered views of Members, who feel very passionately about the subject, but I also hope that, when a conclusion is reached, the prevailing view will be given a smooth passage in this House and elsewhere. I have said on many occasions that the issue is about animal welfare and our moral obligation to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: With only 10 minutes, I am afraid that I will not give way.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that interventions are treated as additional to the length of speeches, otherwise the debate will not be conducted in the proper way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right; that point is taken.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Let me make some progress, then I will certainly take interventions.
Evidence presented to Burns reflected many of the conclusions about which I told the House in 1997. For example, hunters argued that prey did not suffer because of the quick-kill theory. It was claimed that prey was killed by a nip to the back of the neck. The post mortem evidence on both hares and foxes commissioned by the Burns inquiry is most illuminating. The summary of the Cambridge university post-mortem evidence states:
Hare no 1.
This hare was producing milk … The hare was very pale indicating substantial bleeding before death. The skull was crushed and the brain damaged. One eye had been forced from the socket … 9 ribs were fractured, a lung punctured and substantial bleeding had occurred into the chest …


Hare no 4.
The hare was heavily pregnant … substantial injuries and bruising over the back of the hare … Some of the spinal bones were broken and a kidney displaced.
Post-mortem evidence on foxes given to the Burns inquiry states:
Fox 3
… no indication of damage to the … (neck) vertebrae.
However, there was "compression of the chest", almost all the ribs had been broken, and the spine was broken in two. The diaphragm had broken down, and there was
destruction of the structure of the heart and lungs.
The abdomen had been destroyed, and the pelvis separated. The post-mortem concluded:
Cause of death
Profound trauma by repeated dog bite.

Mr. Paice: Obviously the injuries that the hon. Gentleman describes would lead to the animal's quick death. [Interruption.] That is self-evident. The hon. Gentleman was using those arguments to illustrate what I believe is his case that instantaneous death does not necessarily result. How can he use the descriptions of those post-mortem examinations to explain his argument that the death was in some way prolonged?

Mr. Foster: A post mortem cannot determine the time that elapsed between the first hound catching the fox and the damage caused. My point is that the death was not caused by a quick bite to the back of the neck.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Robathan: rose—

Mr. Foster: I have given way once. I want to make some progress.
Hunt supporters have now changed their soundbite on the issue. They now say that the manner of the kill is the "least cruel" option. I reject that. I return to what Burns said and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) quoted. Lamping—shooting a fox at night with a rifle—is the most humane way of killing a fox. If lamping is not practical, flushing the fox out of cover to be shot is more humane a method of killing than hunting with dogs. However, focusing on the kill itself is not the only issue. The chase, too, causes the prey—a fox, hare or deer—distress. If cruelty is defined as "causing unnecessary suffering", the chase is indeed cruel.

Mr. Robathan: I understand that the hon. Gentleman fishes. He mentioned cruelty, but is he aware that the RSPCA has found that, beyond perad venture, fishing is cruel? I understand that he is willing to catch a fish on the end of a hook—purely for pleasure, not to eat; in coarse fishing the fish is not eaten—and play with it for hours. Surely that is just as cruel as anything that happens to a fox.

Mr. Foster: I do not believe that the RSPCA used those words; nor do I go fishing with a pack of dogs and let them tear the fish apart while it is still alive.
The chase is deliberately prolonged by activities such as stopping up earths and "holding up". On average, the chase lasts between 15 and 20 minutes and covers a distance of six or seven miles. In the case of deer, it can last three hours and cover many more miles.
The chased animal will exert maximum effort to escape. Indeed, it will run to the point of exhaustion to avoid the threat.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will make some more progress.
The chase is unnecessary, but it is the very essence of the sport that is associated with hunting. The chase causes the animal unnecessary suffering and is therefore by definition cruel. No regulatory body intended to oversee such an activity could fail to reach that conclusion.

Dr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Foster: I should like to make some more progress.
The concern about jobs is real, but the Countryside Alliance's exaggerations have been exposed for the fraudulent claims that they are. Given the notice that hunt employees have had of the likelihood of a ban, they should by now have investigated the alternatives. As I have said previously, drag hunting is a viable alternative.
People have the skills to breed and train the hounds, to organise the hunting day and the hunting calendar, and to maintain the fences and hedges that are associated with the thrill of the chase. People build and maintain artificial earths and go out of their way to stop up natural hiding holes for the fox. I do not believe that it is beyond their wit to make drag hunting a genuine alternative. On drag hunting, Burns observed that there is little motivation to develop the sport while live quarry hunting exists.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will not.
All those people who enjoy the ride, the countryside and the camaraderie should take the hint: hunting foxes is going to be banned; develop the alternatives now.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I want to make progress.
The pest control argument has been made and lost. The conclusions are clear. Hunting with dogs is a sport disguised as a form of pest control. Current hunting practices, such as the use of artificial earths, are totally inconsistent with the objective of population control, but totally in keeping with a good day's sport.
Traditional fox hunts account for one in every 40 fox deaths. It is not an effective method of control. With 40 per cent. of foxes killed during cub hunting, it is hardly selective in weeding out the sick or the lame. The average cost per kill is £930. In six hunts, it costs more than £3,000 a kill. So it is hardly an efficient process, either.

Caroline Flint: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I want to make progress.
The fox has been persecuted for many years for the wholesale slaughter of lambs, chickens and piglets. It is difficult to distinguish between the killing of a live lamb and the scavenging of a dead or dying one, and so the myth grew. However, Burns concluded that less than 2 per cent. of lambs are killed by foxes. I accept that there can be localised variations, but in such cases, we need selective action, not a gap in the hunting calendar and the random pursuit by scent of any old fox that happens to be in the neighbourhood.
I make no apologies for quoting from the Burns report. The wife of a hunt master said in a letter that they thought Burns would be their saviour, but instead the situation had become a nightmare. I do not share that view. The report has cast light on important issues that were shrouded in darkness. Far from being a nightmare, it is a wake-up call to all those people who believe that humans should have respect for other creatures on this planet.
The issue has become one of democracy. Following an independent inquiry, there is to be a free vote on a range of options, which will mean that it has been scrutinised. My private Member's Bill to ban hunting was talked out in March 1998. That day marked the end of the beginning. Today, we are at the beginning of the end.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrat party has concluded that hunting with dogs should be banned. Although colleagues in this House and the other place know that it is the party's view, they also know that it will not be imposed on them. Like members of other parties, my colleagues will vote according to their conscience. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are in the same position as other hon. Members.
Our previous debate of substance on the issue was when the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) promoted his Bill. On Second Reading, 27 of my colleagues voted in favour of it, 14 voted against and six abstained or were absent. Therefore, it is also clear that the majority of my present colleagues have been persuaded that a ban is appropriate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was my predecessor as spokesman on home affairs, opposed the ban. I shall make my position clear: I have always supported a ban on hunting. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not jump to prejudiced conclusions. We all come to the debate understanding not only that there are strongly held views, as evidenced by this debate and the discussions outside the House, but that many of those views stem from tradition and experience and should be treated with respect.
I shall deal with the two most common prejudices about people's views. First, it is absolutely untrue that people in urban areas oppose foxhunting and people in rural areas support it. Evidence also does not bear out the belief that Members of Parliament from urban areas are overwhelmingly opposed to foxhunting, and those from rural areas are supportive. In any event, people should not jump to conclusions about their colleagues, and I shall give two examples to demonstrate why.
I spent the first 18 years of my life living in villages. In one of them, the hunt used to meet within 100 yards of my house, and I went beagling when I was at school.

I am not a townie by background; I come from a rural English and Welsh background. That did not, however, persuade me to support hunting. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who has put his name to the second reasoned amendment, started life as a city dweller. He was born in London and ended up in Huntingdon. We must not jump to conclusions. Colleagues from different parts of the country will have different views, all based on their individual experience, and we must respect them all.
The second prejudice relates to people who go hunting. Anybody who knows anything about hunting—I claim to be in that category—knows that it is not a class-based activity or sport. People from all backgrounds hunt. I hope that prejudice on this ground will also be put aside. People on low incomes and those from poor backgrounds hunt just as frequently and with just as much enthusiasm as people who are more advantaged.
The debate on this Bill is as much about process as it is about principle. Then is also a third issue to be discussed—what we should do about public opinion. On the process, I commend the way in which the Government have handled the issue. They made a commitment in their manifesto to have a free vote on the principle. Everybody who read that assumed that it also implied a commitment to find time for the legislation, if the vote was in favour of a ban. It is therefore appropriate that the Bill has been introduced. If the Government had not introduced it, they would have implicitly betrayed their manifesto commitment.
Given how long the issue has been around, it is right, too, that we are moving towards its resolution. The Home Secretary has presented us with a multi-option Bill, of which there have been good examples in the past, and that is the right way to proceed. Multiple options were given not only in the Sunday Trading Bill—a matter on which people had strong personal opinions, rather than a party view—but also in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, on which people had strong ethical views. It seems, therefore, that this is an appropriate procedure for this Bill. It is also entirely reasonable that each of the options can be amended, so once the House has made its initial choice, that is not the final word.
It is also commendable that the authoritative Burns inquiry was held. I found it very helpful. The arguments were useful and dealt with some of the prejudices. There was a huge debate, for example, about what implications a ban would have for jobs, and the inquiry was effective in producing the most recent evidence and answering that point, which gives us a common basis on which to make a decision.
Turning to the constitutional issues, my personal view is that although hunting was a reserved matter when we debated the Government of Wales Act 1998, which set up the National Assembly, it would be much more appropriate if the issue were decided by the Assembly. Scotland will make its own decision and legislate, as it is entitled to do. Northern Ireland has separate arrangements and, coincidentally, does not have hunting. It is therefore entirely inconsistent on this issue that Wales alone should be affected by a decision made by a House with a large majority of English Members.

Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more appropriate for the decision about hunting in England to be decided by Members of Parliament for


English constituencies and not by those for Scottish constituencies, who have no control over hunting in their own country?

Mr. Hughes: I should not have given way because I was about to deal with that issue; I could have saved a second or two.
The constitutional position of all Members of Parliament is as follows: we were elected on the basis that we would legislate in this Parliament for matters across the United Kingdom. Anybody who had asked that question knew that that was so. For decades we have legislated for Northern Ireland, since it became a Province, with a minority of Northern Irish Members. So, I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that hunting should be only for Members representing English constituencies in this Parliament to decide upon.
There is, however, an issue for the next election. Now that there is devolution to the Scotlish Parliament, which my colleagues and I supported and welcomed, and partial devolution to the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which we also welcomed—although, in the case of Wales, we thought that the process should go further—people should be asked and parties should make clear whether those elected to the next Parliament to represent English constituencies expect to vote on matters to do with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Much more important is the right hon. Gentleman's question whether in the next Parliament Members representing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies, where there are devolved responsibilities, should vote on matters that affect England. That would apply to Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies voting on hunting in England and Wales.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentle man give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way.
The third constitutional issue is about the Parliament Act, which I put to the Home Secretary in an intervention. It seems wrong that that Act should be used for this matter. It would certainly be wrong in this Parliament, and I believe would even be wrong in the next one.
We have two Houses of Parliament. The second is entirely the Government's composition—[Interruption.] The present composition of the House of Lords is entirely the result of legislation introduced by this Government; the present House of Lords is entirely the creature of this Government. Therefore, the Labour Government cannot complain if those whom they decided should be admitted to the House of Lords do not take the same view as the Commons. So, certainly in this Parliament, use of the Parliament Act would not be appropriate. Both Houses should come to a view on the matter.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
The final constitutional issue before us concerns the European Court of Human Rights and human rights in general. There is a question whether the proposed legislation would fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998. My judgment is that it would not; other people have come to the same view. However, it strikes me as a weakness

in the system—I have made this point before—that we cannot seek an advisory judgment on proposed legislation when contemplating putting it on the statute book before the law is implemented. Once Parliament had agreed which Bills it was minded to pass, the ability to do so could save a lot of time, effort and struggle.
I shall be brief on the public opinion issue. Public opinion is divided and none of us can justifiably pray in aid the fact that there appears to be, or may be, a majority in one direction. The postbags of many of us suggest a majority in favour of a ban, but at the end of the day the matter is for us to decide. It is as bad to argue that public opinion should decide this issue as it is to argue that it should have decided yesterday's debate on embryology or any debate on capital punishment. So I hope that people realise that, although we of course listen to the public, we were elected to make such decisions; otherwise, we might as well not have a Parliament at all.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
We are left with the matter of principle. I shall be honest: the decision is clearly difficult for us all. It is obviously difficult for those with a liberal perspective and philosophy, who come from a political family. Those of us who come from such a background must ask ourselves not just whether we are persuaded in favour of a ban but whether it is overwhelmingly justified to make unlawful such an activity, and therefore make criminal those who carry out that unlawful act. We can vote in favour of restricting such liberty only if we can answer that doing so is justified.

Mr. John Burnett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: I should like to make a little more progress.
The burden of proof also must lie with those who want to take away liberty rather than with those who want to defend it. I accept that entirely.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I have given way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and promised to do so to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me?
Our starting point is to define which liberties we are dealing with. We are not dealing with acts between human beings, on which issue, we take the view that an act that causes no harm to others ought to be permitted. The issue is not the same as boxing, for which adults give consent for harm to be done. I support the continuation of boxing because it is a matter on which adults can reasonably decide. The question is also not one of human rights versus animal rights, because animals do not have rights in the same way as humans. Humans have a duty to safeguard the welfare of other creatures, but animal rights in my view do not exist.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why?

Mr. Hughes: I believe that human beings are the most particular, special, advanced form of creation and that we


are uniquely divinely equipped. Some of course do not share this theological view. But some of us believe that we therefore have a theological responsibility to animals and to creation, that not properly meeting such responsibility can carry penalties, and that although there are standards, clear guidelines from faith communities and other views, the matter is none the less not one of human rights versus animal rights. We are stewards charged with a responsibility to the welfare of animals in our society.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.
I turn to the big question of whether we should kill animals at all. Some faith groups and individuals such as those belonging to Jainism say that there should be no killing of any creature.

Mr. Banks: I could make an exception.

Mr. Hughes: As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman is not yet a Jain, although he seems to be moving in that direction.
Most of us accept that there are some justifications for killing animals. One is when they are dangerous and it is in the best interests of society in order to protect human beings. Another might be because animals are predatory and the greater interest requires their killing. A third might be because we want to eat them. One justification for fishing and hunting is that, by and large, we do so in order to eat.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Not coarse fishing.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but one traditional justification for most fishing and most hunting is that it is carried out in order to eat. That is not of course the same as hunting with dogs.
There is the question whether we should kill animals for pleasure alone. I would argue that we should not. The hunting argument is justified not because it gives pleasure alone but because it is also for a purpose, even though, none the less, hunting may give pleasure as a consequence.
Where have we got to? After more than 100 years of debate, we have moved logically to the presumption that it is right to legislate to prevent unnecessary suffering of animals. We did so in 1911 in relation to most domestic animals against the background that bear baiting, cock fighting and other activities were not acceptable, but excepted hunting, and we did so in relation to wild animals in 1996. So, the argument is not that we have not moved in such a direction. The time has come to take the next logical step.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to allow successive interventions from Opposition Members but to decline interventions from Government Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The decision lies entirely with the hon. Member who is speaking. The hon. Member

for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has given way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because I find it difficult to follow the logic of his argument. Earlier, he stated that it is right that this matter be brought to a conclusion. However, much legislation enacted by this House through the centuries—including, for instance, legislation that criminalised certain religious groups at the time of the reformation—has been justified on exactly the basis that there was a consensual majority in the House tending towards a certain view, and I know that that is not an argument that the hon. Gentleman would support. Here we have an issue of conscience that clearly touches people deeply, yet he believes that, because of his own views, it is right for this House to impose them on others. In that regard, I find his argument unsustainable.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not believe that we should reach a conclusion because of my views, or that we should conclude that my views should be imposed on others. There has been a public debate and the public have shown huge interest in the matter. A strong argument has been advanced inside and outside the House for legislation. A huge majority—260—voted in favour of legislation. Therefore, rather than allow the issue to remain unresolved, a choice can and should be made. The hon. Gentleman's argument or mine may prevail, but that is a matter for Parliament. After all the preparatory skirmishes, it is right that Parliament takes a view.
I have come to the view that in a civilised, less barbaric, more mutually respectful society, we can justify a ban, but we must ensure that it is justified on specific grounds, and we must take account of evidence such as that arising from the Burns inquiry, which asks the question: is there an alternative? If we are persuaded that some foxes must be killed and there is no alternative to hunting, we might be driven to a conclusion that we do not like, but are forced to accept. However, that is not the view expressed in the Burns report. People often justify hunting on the basis that animals kill each other and things are rough in the wild, but that is no argument, because it does not predetermine what view we, as human beings, should take for ourselves. As everybody knows, and as the Burns report confirms, there are alternative methods of killing foxes: digging out, shooting, gassing and trapping.
There are a couple of facts to be considered: it appears that only one in 200 lambs, to take the most obvious example, are killed by a fox, and that, of foxes killed, only 5 per cent. are killed by hunting. It is not as if hunting is the major way of culling them; a huge number of foxes are killed by shooting and an even larger number by cars. Therefore, alternatives exist and they appear to do the job. On the evidence of personal experience and the Burns report, the only real difficulty is in upland areas, where, compared to lowland areas, it is more difficult for the alternatives to succeed.
I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has said, but the Burns report provides clear evidence of significant cruelty. In its conclusions and


the summary, the report is unqualified, and to that extent it was helpful. It is true that it used a phrase that we have come to know well, that the experience of being hunted
seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
However, the report also makes clear the nature of the injury and the harm inflicted before and during the kill and thereafter. I would submit that no one who has read the report could argue that there is neither significant cruelty, nor the risk of significant cruelty—

Mr. Hogg: There is the same cruelty in fishing.

Mr. Hughes: Some of the alternatives, at least, constitute a less cruel method of dealing with the fox. As for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept the argument relating to coarse fishing and shooting. If there was public demand for a similar proposition in respect of those activities and it was brought before the House, we would have to face that. However, although there are issues relating to cruelty in those activities, that is not the nature of the proposition before us now. The Bill relates only to hunting with dogs of foxes, deer and hares, and in that respect the evidence is clear.

Mr. Burnett: My hon. Friend has spoken of the dilemma of a liberal. Will he address the question of whether it is fair to single out one activity for a ban while omitting to mention any other similar activity? Does he agree that that is patently unfair?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend's question is perfectly proper, but the Government have introduced a Bill that deals with hunting with dogs and that is the proposition that we must deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, a separate debate took place some years ago on whether to ban firearms. Each proposition may pose different questions. The proposition before us today relates to hunting with dogs and we have the evidence needed to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. I have dealt with that issue, and many other hon. Members want to speak.
My final points relate to the arguments, sometimes claimed to be overwhelming, against a ban. Some say that there is a rural crisis and that rural communities are collapsing. It is true that there are huge problems in rural Britain, but if an activity is wrong, one cannot justify its continuation because there are difficulties in those parts of the country in which that activity predominantly takes place.
Some say that we must not get rid of hunting because it is symbolic of English life. Bullfighting is symbolic of Spanish life, but it is no more justifiable than is foxhunting in England. Life moves on, for heaven's sake. There were no motor cars 150 years ago, so cars might be regarded as symbolic of modern English life. We must look forward rather than back. People say that getting rid of hunting will change the nature of the countryside. The nature of the countryside is changed by all sorts of things: European Union regulations, subsidies,

agricultural practices, and so on. It cannot be argued that such things constitute less of a change to the nature of the countryside than banning hunting.
There is a jobs argument, albeit not nearly as strong since the Burns report was published. Burns argues, quite reasonably, that at the end of a period of transition, there would be as many—if not more—alternative jobs in the countryside than jobs exist at present. In addition, according to the report, more jobs would be affected in urban areas than in rural areas. The principle remains the same: if something is wrong, it cannot be justified by the fact that some jobs are involved. We therefore return to the moral argument.
Finally, some say that we need the sport. For heaven's sake, although we need sport, there are many other forms of sport—including drag hunting, although I am not saying that that is an alternative—that constitute perfectly reasonable alternative countryside or sporting activities.
The Home Secretary was asked by a Conservative Member whether the banning of hunting has a policing implication. It has, but there is also a huge policing implication in not banning hunting. Hunts are now policed on a regular basis and the police have made it clear that, whether or not hunting is banned, they anticipate similar resource requirements. The issue is a practical one. A ban might be difficult to police, but so are many other things in life. That cannot be used as an argument against a ban.
There are three options: supervision, regulation or prohibition. However, there is one fundamental question: whether, in the 21st century, the hunting of foxes, deer and hares with dogs should be permitted or whether the practice is so cruel that it should no longer be allowed. The balance between liberty and the welfare of animals is the central question. On this, there is no middle way. One must either accept that hunting is cruel and should not exist, or that it is not so cruel, and it should therefore be allowed, however regulated or supervised.
I have come to the conclusion that the restriction of liberty is justified in the greater interests of a civilised society. I have come to the conclusion also, with some of my colleagues, that it is time for us to proceed to make a choice between the options, not entered into, in the words of the prayer book, "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly" but after plenty of time and serious debate. I hope that at least the Bill will be given a Second Reading so we can get on with the decision, and get on with it soon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it will be helpful to remind the House that the full rigour of the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench Members speeches now applies.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I intend to speak briefly, as I am aware that many other Members wish to speak and I do not wish to be selfish, but I shall speak seriously about an issue that concerns me. First, however, I must declare an interest: I hunt.
We often have recurring dreams, and I most often have a dream of a sunlit meadow and a sparkling stream where I cast a fly. I wait and watch the fly bobbing along the river and wait for the fish to rise. In my dream, I hold my


breath and hope that I shall catch that fish. Unfortunately, when the fish approaches the fly, I usually wake up to find that I have again missed the fish. However, there is always another day and always another dream. In reality, I can go fishing at virtually any time.
It is true that I am not sitting astride a horse or surrounded by dogs, although I fish with dog nobblers occasionally, and some fishermen will know what those are. Nevertheless, I am a hunter. If regulation and licensing are good enough for fishing, why are they not seen by many of my colleagues as good enough for other forms of hunting? How can I, as an avid supporter of fishing and with the Labour party's angling charter in my pocket, hope for hunting to be banned?
For example, can I tell the huntsmen with the mink packs who hunt on foot with dogs and who do more than anyone to try to keep down the mink population that they cannot hunt? Do I tell them that it is all right for me to hunt for fish but not all right for them to hunt for mink, in an effort to protect the water vole, the fish and the ground-nesting birds? It does not make sense.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Would the hon. Lady like to speculate on whether the difference between the two cases might be the relative numbers of people who fish as opposed to those who hunt foxes?

Mrs. Golding: At the last count, it was found that about 4 million people fish. That is a significant number, and a significant number of voters. However, why should mink huntsmen face large fines and imprisonment while I do not? Why should they be made into criminals because they hunt with dogs to protect our countryside, while I am allowed to hunt because I fish? Is there a logical answer to that question?
There are some who say that the answer lies in the fact that we eat fish. However, we do not always do so. Fly fishermen do not always eat the fish that they catch. The result of the latest salmon and freshwater fishing review that the Government commissioned is that salmon can be caught but must be put back into the water to go up to spawn. It is nonsensical to suggest that there is a difference between hunting mink and fishing because we eat fish.
I hope that there is a logical answer to my question, but I cannot find one. I have worked with the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) to try to find a middle way that will resolve the dilemma. I know that many people on both sides of the argument find it difficult to compromise. However, in every civilisation there must be a compromise on some issues. I truly believe that this is one—

Mr. David Taylor: Not on cruelty.

Mrs. Golding: It is cruel to fishermen when they do not catch.
I hope that all Members will read the middle way proposals. They should consider them. I hope, too, that common sense will prevail and that we shall all vote in the correct way.

Mr. John Major: I have never hunted a fox or a deer, nor have I attended a hunt or seen one, except at a distance, yet I oppose the Bill every bit as strongly as any one of the country dwellers who are likely to lose their livelihood should a ban be imposed by Parliament.
I am surprised that the Government introduced the Bill, and truly astonished at the timing of its introduction. At the end of a Parliament in a truncated Session, priority is being given to a measure that is classically the stuff of a private Member's Bill. We are bound to wonder at the priorities and motives that lie behind the Bill. If it is a priority for the Government, that is laughable. As for the Government's motives—I think that these are at least clearer than other factors—they must think that there are votes in the Bill.
Some polls say not, but a majority may well oppose foxhunting. In the Government's eyes, the Bill is to unite that majority against the minority who hunt. It is as simple as that. It is a breath taking illustration of political self-interest overriding natural justice for a minority cause.
Generally in our—

Mr. David Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: I shall make some progress.
Generally in our political system—to its credit, this is usually the view of the Labour party—justice for minorities is considered to be important. So it is, but not, it seems, if the minority consists of countrymen who hunt. Tolerance is swept aside in the Bill. Foxhunters have little hope of their concerns being fairly considered by a majority of Labour Members. Labour Members claim to be tolerant, but to be tolerant is to have the
moral and intellectual courage to accept the right of others to have different traditions, lifestyles, allegiances and beliefs.
That is the definition of tolerance. They are not my words but those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who uttered them the very day before the Queen's Speech was delivered to Parliament. What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman's laudable sentiments do not apply to the Bill. On this issue, Labour Members generally—I exclude the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), with her courageous speech—have all the open-mindedness of a revolutionary tribunal.
In the Bill, which was introduced with sweet reason by the Home Secretary, there are in theory at least options to outride prohibition. There could be an independent supervisory authority—that is on offer. There could be the Home Secretary's preference—regulation and a code of practice, which, subject to examination of the small print, might possibly be a way forward. If these were serious options, I would welcome them. However, I fear that they are no more than fig leaves for the Government to ban hunting and wash their hands of the responsibility for having done so by putting up straw men—forgive me; no pun intended—with every certainty that Labour Back Benchers will not accept them. I suspect that the Government are confident that most Labour Back Benchers have made up their minds to go for prohibition and are deaf to reasoned arguments for the interests of the countryside.
Hunting has always been a tricky issue. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, I was originally from the towns. I understand clearly the strong feelings of many people who oppose hunting. Hunting may offend them, but it should not affect their intellectual judgment of the merits of the activity in terms of pest control when set against other options; only facts should influence them. I congratulate Lord Burns on a report that exposes the complexities of a debate that is too then presented solely in simplistic terms.
Let us consider some of the facts. What are the merits of the Bill? Does it preserve rural traditions? Does it create rural jobs? Does it add to Hirai prosperity? The answers are no, no and no again.

Mr. David Taylor: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remind us of the successes of the Government he led and their predecessors in retaining and developing rural jobs. Rural coalfields in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire, Yorkshire and many other parts of the country were arbitrarily closed by his Government.

Mr. Major: I shall make a deal with the hon. Gentleman: will he undertake that his Government will provide the same financial compensation and assistance to countrymen who lose their jobs as we did to rural communities? They will not do that. Not a penny of compensation is being offered, yet tens and hundreds of millions of pounds were offered by the previous Government.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Major: There has been one daft intervention; I can do without another.
There are, I hope, points of agreement across the House and I shall suggest some. Foxes are vermin that spread disease. They kill sheep, poultry, free-range piglets and game. All farmers regard foxes as a menace. No doubt the sheep, poultry, piglets and game also have strong feelings about them. Moreover, without a proper method of destruction, the number of foxes would treble annually, which, as far as I know, nobody would welcome, so the fox needs culling, but shooting alone will not do, as the Burns report makes clear. It may seem humane—[Interruption.] I seem to hear the slamming of the closed minds of Labour Members. Perhaps they would care to listen to the arguments and make up their minds on that basis rather than on the basis of their own prejudices.
Shooting may seem humane, but it is often ineffective. A fox that is wounded and not killed—that often happens—might linger and suffer for a long time, perhaps even days. Shooting cannot eliminate the need for hunting, as the Burns report makes clear. All violent death is distasteful, unless the fox is to die in comfort, surrounded by its family and mourned by neighbouring chickens. It is inevitable and no one can avoid it.
Many emotive arguments, including some hoary old chestnuts, will undoubtedly be made by Labour Members to advocate the end of hunting. Many of those are conventional wisdom, but that does not make them right. I remember that the concept of a not-for-profit lottery

operator was conventional wisdom and the view of almost every right-thinking person. Anyone who did not agree was viewed as sleazy and self-interested, but we are now in different circumstances: the chase is over and the wrong fox has been killed.
I began by saying that I have never taken part in hunting but that I am intellectually convinced that it is necessary, not least because, having represented a rural constituency for 20 years, I have seen it at close quarters and I care for it. Whatever the personal feelings of Labour Members, I ask them, why wilfully go out of the way to introduce specific legislation to destroy jobs? That is what a ban will do. Why wreck traditions and "modernise"—what damage that word has caused—the activities of a rural minority? Why set town against countryside? [Interruption.] That is exactly what Labour Members are doing, and they are doing it wilfully.
Rural Britain is in severe crisis, but instead of offering help and comfort to the countryside, the Government intend to use the juggernaut of their majority to hurt it further. This is the wrong measure introduced at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. I say to Labour Members that, if the Government force it through, it will be bitterly resented and long remembered.
I invite the opponents of hunting to accept that foxes must be destroyed, that hunting creates jobs, that minorities must not be legislated against simply because they are minorities, that hunting helps to preserve the balance of wildlife in the countryside and that huntsmen and the hunts manage conservation of woodland scrub and hedgerow.
Let Labour Back Benchers open their minds for a moment, banish the image of huntsmen as red-faced toffs and try to understand the intricate complexities of the issue.

Mr. David Taylor: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but I must tell the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) that he has made too many sedentary comments. We must accept that, in debates of this sort, there are strongly held views on both sides. They should be heard in a rational atmosphere.

Mr. Major: Let Labour Back Benchers banish the image of huntsmen as red-faced toffs and understand the intricate complexities of the issue. I am cynical about the Government's intentions, but the Home Secretary has left an escape clause—the options that fall short of a ban. I congratulate him on that, if they are genuine. Let Labour Members show their open-mindedness and prove the cynics, such as myself, wrong. Let them go to earth and allow the escape clauses to protect the future of a traditional way of life. It is Christmas: go on, surprise us!

Mr. Tony Banks: For me, as a humble member of Surrey cricket club, it is awesome to follow the president of the club—not to mention a fellow Chelsea supporter who is also, I may say in passing, a former Prime Minister. I must tell the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that we do not have closed minds


on the issue. Why should our opinion come across as prejudiced while his comes across as open-minded, reasonable and liberal?
It is wrong to say that the measure sets town against country. The majority of people in rural areas oppose foxhunting, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that. It does not pit the Labour party against the Conservative party, either. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not present on the Conservative Front Bench, has put her principles before her political career, and he should show due deference for that. She is a very open-minded, woman, as I am sure he would agree. In other circumstances, we would argue that she was not very open-minded, but, having listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I currently support the right hon. Lady for Home Secretary; she has certainly taken a strong line. [Interruption.] My previous comment was not meant seriously.
Let me tell the right hon. Member for Huntingdon that the debate is not about red-faced toffs. That is not the sort of language that we use—although I do not know what toffs do in their private lives to make them red-faced. This is not a question of toffs versus the working class. There were hunts based on mining communities, but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have been and remain just as opposed to the cruel practice of hunting there as I am to any other hunt, irrespective of the social or economic background of those who follow the practice. He should not come to the House and say that this is a class issue, or one of town versus country. It most certainly is not a class issue.
I am delighted that, at long last, we have secured a debate in Government time on the future of hunting. About time too; I greatly regret the fact that the Government took so long to introduce the Bill in Government time. During the election campaign, we were led to believe that that was precisely what they would do—we were not told that although a Bill that we could vote on would be introduced, nothing would happen subsequently. We believed that the Bill would be taken to its full term, so that the House could decide and it could go on to the other place. However, it did not do so, largely because of the obstructionist tactics of a small number of people on the opposing side—the so-called open-minded people—who tried to destroy the Bill in Committee.
I have listened to a number of arguments in the House and elsewhere to the effect that while we are legislating on this matter, we are ignoring bigger issues. Every day we hear statements about, and consider legislation relating to, jobs, education, health and transport. It is interesting to note that those among the pro-hunting group who accuse us, incorrectly, of ignoring those vital issues, spend a great deal of their own time campaigning on hunting and hunting alone.
Where was the Countryside Alliance when rural post offices were being closed, bus routes in rural areas slashed and rural railway lines closed down? Over the years when Conservative Members were in control of this country, that did far more damage to the rural economy than the abolition of fox hunting could ever do. What perverse priorities do they have?
I believe that the House should spend some time addressing the subject of animal welfare. I disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): I do believe that animals have rights. That is a matter of principle, a matter for debate, a matter on which we can divide. The only place where animals' rights and welfare can be addressed is the House, and the House has dealt with the subject over the years.
As I commented in an intervention, the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was just like the speeches that were made at the time of Canning, when the ban on bull baiting was discussed. Exactly the same arguments were used then—and, I may add, there were similar arguments about the abolition of slavery. Opposition Members are the political descendants of those who opposed legislation to stop people sending little boys up chimneys.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman has reiterated the points made elsewhere in comparisons with bear baiting, dog fighting, bull baiting, badger baiting and the rest. Does he accept that there is a gulf of difference between pitting animals against each other in an enclosed area from which there is no escape, often with one of the animals tethered or chained, and hunting an animal in its natural environment, when it has the opportunity to escape?

Mr. Banks: And doing such things as stopping up earths so that the fox cannot bolt down them, or breeding foxes just so that they can be hunted?
Hunting is about human pleasure. It is all about the chase, the bloodlust and the kill. It might be slightly different from putting a bull in an enclosed area and setting dogs on it, but it is still about entertaining human beings, and I do not believe that human beings should be entertained by cruelty to animals. That is my central point.
There is another aspect; we hear a lot about jobs. I do not believe that the employment problem is crucial. I do not make light of anyone losing their job, but spare me the hypocrisy that we hear from Opposition Members who paint a lurid picture of the rural wasteland that they say will result from the abolition of foxhunting. They are the same right hon. and hon. Members who, when they were in government, destroyed mining and steel communities and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Let us take a parallel issue concerning freedom. Through every stage of our proceedings on the equalisation of the age of consent, I voted in the Lobby for the age of 16. Many of my colleagues reluctantly did the same. Surely if tolerance is to be practised rather than just preached, there may be moments when the hon. Gentleman also has to support in the Lobby the idea of allowing of something with which he does not agree. Is this not such a case?

Mr. Banks: There will be occasions when I find myself in that position, but this is not one of them. I cannot condone the barbarity and the cruelty. I cannot understand how anyone can watch a hare being ripped to pieces by two greyhounds. I cannot comprehend the pleasure that people get from that Does no one feel sorry for the hare, which is not a pest? Does anyone take pleasure from seeing a terrified stag or deer being chased, and think that that is good fun? I will never, ever be able to understand that. That is the difference.
My mind is not closed, I say to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon; it is simply made up. I have come to that over the years. I cannot abide cruelty to animals.

Mr. Grieve: May I infer from that that the hon. Gentleman would take the same view of religious slaughter? I should be interested to hear his view.

Mr. Banks: I represent an area where there is a very large Muslim population. In fact, in the London borough of Newham, the ethnic minority is now white. I have said before that I do not support ritual slaughter. I never have done and I never will, because I do not consider it fair or humane. I have told my constituents that, and I tell the hon. Gentleman the same. If people want to exact electoral retribution, let them. That is their right and they are free to do so, but I am free and I within my rights in the House to say what I believe in, without fear or favour.

Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: For the last time.

Mr. Townend: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He says that he cannot bear to see people getting pleasure from killing animals. Is he then in favour of banning shooting and fishing?

Mr. Banks: No, because there are different levels of cruelty. I used to fish a great deal; I used to love fishing. I share that pleasure with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but in politics there are lines to be drawn. I would not choose to fish or to shoot, but equally, I would not choose to ban others from doing so. That is where I have drawn my line. Other right hon. and hon. Members must draw their own lines. I shall finish the point—[Interruption.] It has nothing to do with votes, as I heard someone say. It has to do with where, in our personal lives and in our political lives, we believe a line must be drawn. There will always be someone complaining on the other side.
The Burns report refers to 700 jobs being directly affected by the abolition of hunting, and a possible 6,000 to 8,000 indirectly affected, if alternatives are not found. Compare that with the 300,000 jobs that have been lost in manufacturing since the Labour Government were elected. Interestingly, there are now 1.1 million more people in employment than there were before, so there is clearly enough flexibility in our economy to deal with job losses, should they occur, even if alternatives are not sought. I do not disparage anyone's job, whether it is in the rural economy or in an urban area.
In conclusion, I believe passionately in my position, as the House is aware. Nothing that is said tonight will convince me, any more than anything said from the Labour Benches or from anywhere else will convince Conservative Members, so let us move to deal with the issue. Let us make sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Michael Heseltine.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who speaks with great passion, revealed what most of us in the Opposition believe: there is a line to be drawn, as he so eloquently said. What does that mean? There are enough votes in the urban areas—in the working men's club of the Labour party—so Labour Members will support any form of hunting or fishing, so long as no votes will be lost. That is the harsh reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was right to be charitable, but I have no faith in the outcome of the vote tonight. The Bill will be carried by a vast majority, formed by the majority of Labour Members, who are determined to get rid of hunting and will use any constitutional means to achieve that. I have the greatest sympathy for the Home Secretary, who has produced a fig leaf of options, although he well knows that there is no prospect of any of those options being chosen by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for West Ham revealed the intellectual rigour that he brings to the debate. Resistance to taking the women out of the mines and the children out of the chimneys is seen as the fault of the Opposition at the time, whom he thinks of as members of the Tory party. It was the Shaftesbury Bill of 1833, under a Tory Government, that took the women out of the mines and the children out of the chimneys.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) revealed the fact that he fishes. None the less, he is prepared to deny people the right to hunt. What hypocrisy is that? I do not hunt; I have never hunted, but I do fish. When the hon. Gentleman casts that innocent fly upon the waters, hooks the fish, and tears the guts out of it as he puts it back, does he pat it affectionately on the head and say, "Poor little thing. I respect all animals on this planet. Now get back into the river and do your best to survive, now that I have taken your guts away"? Is that what he thinks? That is hypocrisy carried to the ultimate degree.
The most cynical aspect of the Bill is that has been introduced either because the Government do not believe that it will get through before the election, or—I believe that this is more realistic—because a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister's problems with the Labour Back Benches became particularly acute, and he needed to buy off Labour Members, quieten them down and toss them a bit of good red meat to gain their loyalty in the coming election and bring the troops out in Labour constituencies. What could he give them? Apparently the single biggest priority for Britain, the one thing that the nation needs above all else, is a bitterly divisive urban-rural crisis.
Let me tell Members who do not understand these things that men and women out there are angry. They are angry about the fact that their traditional historic practices are to be swept aside in the narrowest interest—the class interest—of the Labour party. It may be said that the Liberals take a different view, but I have never heard such a hypocritical speech as the one I heard today from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He says, "My party is against hunting—as long as all our candidates in all the constituencies where it matters can say that they disagree with us." I should not be surprised by that, of course; it has been Liberal policy on every subject since time immemorial.
As I have said, I have no personal interest in hunting—other than that connected with my family—but I have seen something of human cruelty to animals. [HON. MEMBERS: "You sacked all the miners."] Oh yes, and we paid them £30,000 a time in compensation. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was a great deal more than was paid to the 700,000 miners who lost their jobs from 1945 onwards. In 1945, when Labour was in government, three quarters of a million people were employed in the British mining industry. Today about 30,000 are employed, and the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must not go on shouting from a sedentary position. We can have orderly debate here.

Mr. Heseltine: Well, the hon. Gentleman's backside is pretty eloquent, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that there are deep class resentments in the anti-hunting lobby. Let me make a simple point. Those who will suffer from the ban that the Labour party wish to impose are not the rich, not the toffs. Those people's horses will go to Ireland, or to France. There will be chartered aeroplanes to take them wherever the sport can be found, and given the growing affluence of which the Labour party is so proud to speak, they will find ways of continuing. Those who will really suffer are ordinary people in rural communities—the people who stand and watch, and whose social life revolves around the hunt. It is they who will find that a great part of their lives has been removed from under them.
Does the Labour party really believe that the urban life, the urban community and the so-called inclusiveness that is now the language of the day are so superior in the urban world that the communities of rural England should be destroyed? Let me tell them that enough destruction is happening in our urban communities. There is enough of the yobbo culture. Enough young people are wandering around saying, "Who can we rough up? Who can we laugh at? Whose window can we stove in?" Enough of that is happening in urban areas for me to consider it an intolerable act of hypocrisy—when there is real community and social inclusiveness in rural communities, based on the hunt—for the narrow, bitter class bias that drives so much of the Labour party to be allowed this platform of opportunity by a craven Government who are giving in to their worst prejudices.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. I wondered where they were when farm workers were disappearing off the land, when gangers were coming in, when contract men were coming in and when rural communities and villages were being taken over by second homes. Were they in Hyde park protesting? Were they defending rural communities then? They were not. That was progress: that was modernisation; that was a combine harvester and 18 jobs gone; and that was people coming in to do the milking, and the end of regular herdsmen.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke of the prospects of those living in tied cottages. His party, and members of the Countryside Alliance, voted and worked and spoke against our efforts in the House to get rid of tied cottages. If he is so concerned about his huntsmen who live in tied cottages, he can tell the landlords to say "If these nasty anti-hunters succeed, you will be safe in your house; we will not let you suffer"—but, of course, he will not.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, made a virtue of the fact that he had never seen a hunt, or at best had seen one only in the distance. He had never taken part in a hunt, he said, but he understood hunting. The right hon. Gentleman ought to visit East of England Coursing Club, which is near his constituency if not actually in it. He should go there, as I did, and see hares being pulled to pieces. He should listen to their screams. He should witness the pain and suffering, and the pleasure gained from it. If that is what he regards as the basic foundation of the rural community, his village and his life, this is a sad day for his village, his life and this country.
The right hon. Member for Henley described ours as a class interest—it clearly is, as a toff cannot stay to hear a peasant speak. The right hon. Gentleman has not done the House the usual courtesy. He said there was a degree of class hatred in this. I do not think that that is true: according to poll after poll, people living in the areas involved say that hare coursing, deer hunting and foxhunting—in that order—should be abolished. We are listening to the voice of the rural community.

Mr. David Taylor: A large-scale survey that I undertook in November 1997, in a part of my constituency in which the Quorn hunts, established precisely that. A significant majority of rural residents opposed hunting, and supported the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that that is reflected in rural areas throughout England and Wales.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon described us as some sort of revolutionary tribunal. He spoke like a latter-day Robespierre sending us to the guillotine. I read with interest the amendment tabled by him and his colleagues, which states
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to deal at all with animal welfare and intentional cruelty towards wild mammals, but is solely directed at the practice of hunting with dogs.
I understand that splendid sentiment; but let us look at the names of the signatories. They are Mr. John Major, the former Prime Minister; Mr. Michael Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister; Mr. Michael Howard—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we refer to Members in a particular way. We do not use their names.

Mr. McNamara: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am reading what is on the Order Paper. However, I shall do it in a different way. The names are those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister; the right hon. Member for Henley, the former Deputy Prime Minister; the right hon. And


learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary; the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General.—[Interruption.] Why did I leave out the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? I will tell the House why: he kept the other five in office during the last six months of their operations. I was going to make that point at the end of the quotation. Those five Members—all Privy Councillors—were in government for 10, 12 or 13 years, during which a measure on animal welfare or on doing away with intentional cruelty to animals was not introduced with the backing of the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon or that of his predecessor. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 started as a private Member's Bill, which is why it is sheer hypocrisy for Opposition Members to seek to criticise the Government.

Mr. Roger Gale: rose—

Mr. McNamara: Finally, since 1966, I have been associated with every anti-hunting Bill to have been introduced in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) must not remain on his feet when it is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. McNamara: I have been associated with every anti-hunting Bill in the House since 1966. One of my Bills was taken over by the Government and mangled in the House of Lords. I am glad that the Government have taken over the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I am sad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he will vote for the second option. He said that he hopes that the Bill will settle the matter once and for all. I assure him that if the second option is carried, the matter will continue until we get rid of it completely.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal courtesy for Members who have made speeches to remain in their seat long enough to hear the following speaker? The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made his speech and left the Chamber. I do not know what he has gone to do. Did he explain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why he was ignoring the normal courtesy, or is he unaware of it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. There is a distinction between order, which is a matter for the Chair, and matters of courtesy to the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to nobody else, for seeking to intervene. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is quite wrong. As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group for six years, I had a high regard for the attitudes on animal

welfare held by the previous Prime Minister and his predecessor. The Conservative party passed the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act might need to be reviewed now but, at the time, it was a major piece of legislation. I would uphold no one's right to criticise what was done for animal welfare under the previous two Prime Ministers. There was cross-party consensus on animal welfare then, and I am sad that that is breaking down tonight. Having said that, it will surprise no one to learn that, having resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the previous Government over a hunting-related issue, I shall certainly support the Bill tonight. Given the opportunity, I shall, in due course, vote for a total ban.
I should like to deal with three issues, the first of which is the freedom of the individual. I regard that as a wholly spurious argument because this is not a matter of freedom at all. I know for a fact that there are Members who will go into the Lobby to vote against the Bill who voted, as I did myself, against the provision allowing young men and women of 16 to be buggered by older men. Some regarded that as a matter of freedom. I did not: I regarded it as profoundly wrong, as I do hunting. It is not a matter of the freedom of the individual, but of whether or not we live in a civilised society and whether we respect the animals around us. It is a matter of cruelty, but no more than that. It is wrong and spurious to try to suggest that, in some way, it is a matter of freedom.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gale: No, I will not, because my right hon. and learned Friend has intervened many times and, perhaps, he will have a chance to make a speech later—[Interruption.] Forgive me, he intervened many times during the opening Front Bench speeches. I was here.
The practice of hunting is as wrong as cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. I am happy about the measure and believe that, within a few months, foxhunting will go the same way as those practices.
I want to spend a moment talking about the countryside lobby. It saddens me enormously that the countryside lobby, many of whose aims I respect and support, has been hijacked by a single-issue group of campaigners. There is much wrong in the countryside that the Government are not addressing and not putting right. There is a crisis in farming. Those of us who support the Bill will have to address certain matters, not least the issue of fallen stock. If we are going to go down this road—I hope that we do—it will be no good to say that we shall leave that until later. When the Bill reaches Committee, those issues and the issue of compensation will have to be addressed. Members on both sides of the House who support the Bill will have to bear that burden of responsibility and come up with answers: the countryside deserves that.
I am concerned about the motives behind this move at this time, although I support it. I am not convinced that, on the part of the Prime Minister, it is anything other than wholly cynical. I hope and believe that the Bill will go through the House and the other place. However, the Prime Minister said three times on television that what became known as the Foster Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), was defeated in the House of Lords. On each occasion, the Prime Minister knew that he was wrong. I wrote to him


on three occasions, but he declined to reply. I then challenged him in the House of Commons. In July, he said on the record:
The House of Lords prevented the fox hunting Bill from proceeding.—[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1102.]
Again, the Prime Minister knew that he was wrong.
I am concerned that the Bill will go to another place, where the total ban, which I support, might not be passed. That will then be used cynically as an example of what the Tory House of Lords has sought to do. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the other place is not a Tory House of Lords, but the Prime Minister's House of Lords. If Members of the other place choose to take a view—the middle way option—that is different from that held by those of us who want a total ban, that is their right. However, I hope that we will never hear that argument from the Government Front Bench or the Prime Minister.
Finally, I want to deal with a letter I received from a woman—judging from her tone, not a lady—who lives in Buckinghamshire. She told me that she did not want me to exercise a moral judgment on her behalf. I am not seeking to exercise a moral judgment on behalf of anyone but myself and those whom I represent. There is no hunt in the Isle of Thanet, which is a predominantly rural area. My farmers control their foxes without the need to ride to hounds. They do so efficiently and cleanly.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Gale: I am happy that, on this occasion, my views and those of my constituents coincide. I believe that by voting for the Bill, I shall be voting for a cleaner, more moral and more civilised society. In doing so, my views coincide with those of my constituents.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) because, for a moment, I believed that there was one issue, above all others, that united the Conservative party. However, I see that it is as split as ever and that it is business as usual.
I want to address the issues of liberty and justice, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred before leaving the Chamber. Liberty and justice are issues behind which some Members not known for their commitment to either have been hiding this evening. First, however, I want to make a simple point. Those who speak for hunting do not speak for the countryside. They have a right to defend their sport, but they should acknowledge that they do so on behalf of a minority of country dwellers who support hunting and an even smaller minority of country dwellers who participate in it.
Hunting is not an issue between town and country—unless the Conservatives wish to make it one. As we have heard today, some people who live in towns follow hunting and many people who live in the country oppose it. Nor is it a matter of class war. Many people from what the Conservatives would regard as the upper classes oppose hunting and many others support it and participate in it. The speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet exemplified the fact that it is not even an issue between the Labour party and the Conservative party.
It is a shame that the pro-hunting lobby does not have sufficient courage of its convictions to sail under its own flag instead of wrapping itself in the flags of others, with or without their consent. Indeed, the hunting lobby has done rural communities a grievous disservice because the clamour created by a narrow but highly effective self-interest has all but drowned out the authentic voice of rural communities and, in turn, that clamour has been amplified by a press and media too often more interested in turmoil and trouble than in truth.
The rural White Paper that the Government published a fortnight or so ago gives real voice to the issues, the priorities and the aspirations of rural communities. That might dismay Conservative Members, but it is an encouragement to people who live in the countryside.
It is time to inject a little honesty in this debate. When the Countryside Alliance marches on London next year, it will not be marching for the countryside; it will be marching for foxhunting. When it marches on Hyde park, it will be marching not for country people but for the hunting fraternity—

Mr. Hogg: It will be marching for freedom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I deprecate shouting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Bradley: When the Countryside Alliance marches on London next year, it will not be marching for the rural way of life, but for its own way of life. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with defending what one values, but I beg Conservative Members not to try to persuade me that hunting is necessary for pest control, for conservation and for employment. It is not necessary for any of those reasons; it is a sport. People do it because they enjoy it. I accept that people may have different values from my own and that they enjoy that sport. I accept that the argument is valid, but I do not agree with it.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No. Unlike the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I have been out with my local hunt. I have done so during the three short years that I have been a Member of Parliament, while the right hon. Gentleman has represented Huntingdon for considerably longer, showing the commitment—of which he spoke—to his rural community. I have been out with the hunt in my constituency and I respect the right of those people to hold their views. They are utterly decent people, but I do not share their value system. People on both sides of the argument are entitled to their views.
The biggest difficulty for those who support a ban on hunting is the issue of civil liberties. In a democracy, we acknowledge that minorities have rights and that, by and large, the majority should respect those rights. That is true. In civilised society, majorities do not infringe minority rights to worship, to associate and to pursue their own interests, but I would contend that majorities have a right to interfere when the practices of a minority seriously affront the moral code of the majority.

Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman believes, as he said he did, that the views of those who hunted were of equal


validity to his own, his argument is either completely spurious and advanced simply as a decoration, or it is so inconsistent that it is not worth listening to.

Mr. Bradley: I apologise to the House for giving way to such a specious intervention. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's former clients are glad that he is here and not in the courts. I accept the equal right of people on the other side of the argument to hold their views, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to those views. I should have thought that one would encounter that argument at an elementary stage in the practice of the law.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: I give way to another learned gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he please tell the House whether he is drawing a distinction of principle between foxhunting, game shooting and fishing? If he is, what is that difference of principle, and, if not, is he proposing to ban fishing?

Mr. Bradley: As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, it is a matter of degree. It is important for society to be as tolerant as possible, but we have to draw the line beyond which our tolerance cannot extend. Many Labour Members do not participate in shooting and fishing, but we acknowledge the right of others to do so. However, we do not acknowledge people's rights to pursue foxes, hare and deer because we consider it to be a practice of a different order.
As I said before I was so speciously interrupted, I believe that the majority should have rights—that is how we make progress in a democratic society—to decide that the moral climate has changed and that some activities are no longer tolerable. I believe that there is a settled national consensus that the hunting of foxes with hounds is morally repugnant and cannot be justified by any extenuating argument. That has been the view of the anti-hunting lobby not since 1997, as some Conservatives Members suggest, but for centuries.
The first animal welfare Bill was presented to Parliament as long ago as 1800. It was argued then that bull baiting was not civilised and should be banned. It failed because a majority of MPs considered that such a ban would interfere with personal liberties. The same argument is being extended today, 200 years later. In 1809, a second Bill sought to protect farm animals from cruelty and was rejected again because it interfered with the rights of men to own animals and I treat them as they chose. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 was a landmark because it acknowledged not just the physical cruelty that could be inflicted on animals, but the mental cruelty too. Although the Liberals of the day did not dare to include wild animals in that legislation, the Act was passed.
Why is it cruel and unlawful to torment domestic animals, but not to torment wild animals? How are they different? What is the moral difference between the cruelty inflicted on domestic animals, which is not lawful, and the tormenting of wild animals, which is currently lawful? That question has been hanging in the air for 100 years and I believe that there is no better time than the present for an enlightened Government to reflect the enlightenment of the age and allow hon. Members to determine what they believe to be the right answers today.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has left the Chamber, spoke about the reforming Tory Government of 1833. There is a striking parallel between the movements for civil and constitutional reforms and for reforms to protect animals. But each time Parliament has had to confront powerful reaction. Men fought to retain the right to beat their wives. They fought for the right to own slaves. They said that it was their civil liberty to do so. They fought to retain the right to force children to work in the mines and the factories. They fought against the franchise and each time they adduced the same arguments to defend those indefensible principles that are being used today. They opposed every attempt at civil reform as Parliament's interference in inalienable, individual rights. However, the moral culture has changed. Each reform that has been achieved has reflected and advanced the quality of our democracy and our society.
It is the right time for this historic reform and for Parliament to reflect the public mood. In doing so, I hope that we will show tolerance to the minority and an understanding of their predicament. I would support an amendment to provide compensation packages to those who lose their livelihood. I believe that there is a serious problem with fallen stock, which should be addressed. But no one can deny that Parliament has a right to secure this reform. History might say that it has a duty to do so.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Let me first make it clear that my party, large as it is in this place, will also have a free vote on this issue.

Mr. Evans: Where are they?

Mr. Thomas: In Wales, my party is considerably larger than the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Conservative party in Wales had almost 200,000 more votes than his party at the last general election?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman hopes in vain for a similar result in the next general election. The news from the National Assembly is not so good for his party in Wales at the next general election.
Before I was diverted to England, I was about to say that I want to concentrate my remarks on the reasoned amendment that I and my colleagues and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) have tabled, which would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading on the ground that it does not allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide these matters in Wales. I want to explain the reasons why we tabled that amendment.
The Bill is a curious priority for a Government seeking to address the problems of rural areas. However, I agree that the public want this issue to be settled. We have talked about it for long enough, and it is time to bring the matter to a conclusion. Having said that, I should like to give some background to the issue as it has developed in Wales. We view hunting, especially foxhunting, in a slightly different way in Wales.
The Home Secretary made an initial statement on the Burns report on 12 June. I welcome that detailed and measured report on hunting. However, it is important to


note that the Burns inquiry did not report on whether or not hunting should be banned—it was not asked to do so. It is for the House to consider the evidence given in the Burns report and to decide which of the three options before us achieves the best balance—because it is a balance—between the needs of conservation and hunting and the undoubted cruelty that sometimes occurs in hunting.
On 12 June, I asked the Home Secretary whether the Bill would contain an option for the National Assembly for Wales to decide these issues in Wales. He rejected that argument, and has done so again this evening, although I am pleased that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to that possibility. I make no apology for returning to the matter, because on 27 June this year the National Assembly voted that it should have the right to decide the issue of foxhunting in Wales. This Parliament, which has devolved powers to the National Assembly and has asked it to address certain issues in Wales, should listen to the Assembly when it says that it wants a stronger voice on these matters.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that agriculture is at least partly devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and that foxhunting is closely associated with the farming community? That is a very good reason why this matter should be decided by people who represent family farms in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: That is precisely the point that I was about to make. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No, I shall continue because I want to deal with the point about primary legislation. It is clear that if the House, as the primary legislative body, were to place in clause 4 of the Bill an option to allow the National Assembly for Wales to make the regulations in Wales that the Secretary of State will be making in England, the responsibility for primary legislation would remain in the House and there would not be further devolution. We would be devolving the regulations to the Assembly and allowing it to choose one of the options.

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Thomas: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the real reason why the Bill does not offer that possibility. It is because the Prime Minister is totally uninterested in hunting and very interested in votes and in keeping his Back Benchers in line. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly logical, but he is not being listened to by a Government who have no interest in this issue except as a means of party management.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have not heard much logic in this debate.
If the Government allowed the matter to be decided in Wales, the likelihood is that the National Assembly would vote in favour of a ban on hunting. An opinion poll of all National Assembly Members showed that they would go for something similar to option 3 in the Bill. The points I am making are not so much about hunting, but about the ability of the National Assembly to deal with issues that impinge on devolved matters.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is seeking primary legislative powers for the Welsh Assembly through the back door. We had a referendum in Wales and only one in four Welsh people voted for an Assembly. They voted to keep primary legislative powers at Westminster, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.

Mr. Thomas: Without straying too far from the subject of the debate, I should point out that primary legislative powers were not on the agenda or in the referendum in which the people of Wales voted. I reject utterly the hon. Gentleman's point. The House could include in the primary legislation a provision to allow the National Assembly to make the regulations.
The Home Secretary made the point that the same criminal law applies to England and Wales. That is true. However, there have been different penal codes in England and Wales in the recent past. Hon. Members from England who visited Wales in the past 15 or 20 years may have found it strange that they could not get a pint in a pub on a Sunday night. At one time, Sunday closing orders were decided in Wales by local referendums. It is true that the Burns report dismissed that argument, but people in Wales were allowed to have a different priority and a different way of viewing social issues.
Serving a pint on a Sunday carried a criminal penalty. In the past, Wales and England have had different criminal codes, so it is possible to envisage something similar for hunting if that is what the National Assembly and the House decided. A social custom that is legal in England was once illegal in Wales, and the same could happen again with hunting. There is no reason why the National Assembly could not make its own preferred regulations, because that is not a primary power. As the National Assembly is the main body for agriculture in Wales, it is appropriate to allow it that option in the Bill.
Some features of agriculture in Wales demand attention. The Burns report carefully considered upland farm areas and upland sheep farming. It stated that the use of dogs in such circumstances is probably the best and most effective method of fox control. I concur with that. I accept that the feature is not unique to Wales, but I remind hon. Members that we have 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population and 25 per cent. of the country's sheep, mostly in upland farms. That demands careful consideration by legislators. I suspect that the matter is being overlooked, and I believe that the National Assembly could and should do a more thorough job, although it may conclude that a ban is appropriate.
If the Bill goes forward, we will debate the three main options in the new year. I prefer schedule 2, and will seek to amend it. It is not perfect, but it can be amended to reflect the needs of Wales. The Hunting Authority could be the National Assembly, and that would give it the remit and powers that it deserves.
In my constituency, hunting is mostly about fox control. I acknowledge that it has a strong social aspect, but that arises out of the need to control foxes; it is not a


means to do it. A licensing system with an emphasis on control and conservation would enable farmers in my constituency to remain viable and would reassure the public about hunt practices. I accept that the public need such reassurance.
I believe that the public want the House to act on hunting, but the Bill in its present form does not allow the proper voice of Welsh farmers, conservationists or the public to be heard. That is why I shall vote against Second Reading. If the Bill proceeds, I shall seek to amend as appropriate and support the main thrust of schedule 2.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I make no apologies for my views. I am an animal lover. I carry a picture of my Staffordshire bull terrier around in my pocket and I hate cruelty to animals. I am thinking of putting a picture of my wife in my wallet, but the Staffordshire bull terrier currently takes precedence. To be honest, I think that I like animals better than people. I am, therefore, completely opposed to hunting a live animal with hounds, in any form. [Interruption.] Fortunately, my wife does not watch the pantomime that goes on in the House on the television. Neither does she listen to it on the radio, so I am pretty safe.
During my years in Parliament, I have listened to many debates on hunting and have heard evidence to back claims that it causes significant pain, suffering and distress to the animals involved. Over the years, that has convinced me even more that hunting with hounds is barbaric. By agreeing to the Bill on Second Reading, we can proceed to vote on option 3, which will ban foxhunting all together.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: No; I have just commenced my speech. I have listened to some of the hon. Gentleman's interventions and I do not want to waste time.
I want to follow a slightly different path in my remarks from that taken by some other hon. Members. Hunt supporters try to make us believe that they care for the hounds, dogs and horses that are involved in hunting. However, I am sorry to say that wild animals are not the only victims of hunting. The dogs and hounds that are involved in hunting are almost forgotten, but many of them suffer at the hands of hunt supporters.
The worst extreme of their involvement is called terrier work. The supporters and followers of most foxhunts include terrier men and their dogs, whose function is to deal with foxes that find an underground refuge from the hunt. It is colloquially said that such foxes have gone to earth. I accept that some people participate in foxhunts because of the thrill of the chase, socialising, equestrian interests or the desire to watch the dogs work, but I know that some of them, including terrier men, gain their enjoyment from the killing of foxes.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: I have just said that I shall not do so.
For some terrier men, the hunt starts only when the huntsman's horn signals that a fox has gone to earth. Small terrier dogs enter the fox's refuge to locate the sheltering animal. If the fox does not bolt, a vicious

underground battle can occur between it and the terrier. Both the dog and the fox inevitably suffer injuries, which are sometimes so appalling that they result in the death of both. The terrier men listen for the snarls and growls underground and then dig down with spades to expose the combatants. That grisly entertainment can take hours, during which the huntsman, his dogs and the riders have usually moved off to seek another fox. It is uncommon for the average rider or hunt follower to be in close attendance at what is called a dig-out. In fact, such involvement is discouraged. The codes of the master of foxhounds state that
only the terrierman and an assistant should be involved in the dig out.
Once the terrified fox is exposed, it can either be dragged out and shot or killed by a single blow—if the poor animal is lucky—from a spade. Sometimes more than one blow is needed. Disturbingly, terrier work has developed into a sport, if one wants to call it that. As a sport, it is divorced from hunting with dogs and has no season, supervision or legal restriction. The National Federation of Working Terrier Clubs boasts between 4,000 and 5.000 members, but at least an equal number of participants do not belong to any organisation. A terrier gang is a small group of men with assorted terriers, lurchers, nets, iron bars and spades. When the gang finds a fox refuge, a terrier is sent down to confront the fox. Radio transmitters are often fitted to the terriers' collars to help in locating the fox.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one further major disadvantage of the terrier work that he describes is that it makes it more difficult to combat badger baiting? The people who are involved in badger baiting often argue that they are digging out foxes, which remains legal, and are not engaged in badger baiting, which is illegal.

Mr. Steinberg: I shall come to that point in a moment.
The unfortunate fox is dug out with spades and killed, often after being baited by the dogs. It may also be removed to be used later as a sport. It is estimated that about 50,000 foxes are killed in that barbaric way every year. When foxes are under attack by so many dogs, they succumb quickly—too quickly for the terrier enthusiasts, who are seeking to test the gameness of their dogs. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend. Of course, a contest with a badger is a better test, so it is unsurprising that many terrier men stoop to the illegal digging and baiting of badgers.
The RSPCA recently took up a court case in which a Lakeland terrier suffered appalling injuries when three terrier men, who were trespassing at the time, forced it into a fox covert after blocking all its exits. I am pleased to say that the court found in favour of the RSPCA in a landmark decision that gave legal recognition to the fact that people who use terriers for hunting foxes can be guilty of cruelly ill-treating their dogs, not to mention imposing suffering on the fox. Let us be clear about such behaviour. The people involved put their dogs into a confined, underground environment in the knowledge that their quarry will defend itself and will injure or kill their dogs by doing so. Those are not the actions of animal lovers—it is barbarity, pure and simple.
The sport has grown to such an extent that terrier men now have their own monthly magazine, which is entitled "Earth Dog—Running Dog". The magazine is intended


for those who use terriers, greyhounds and lurchers for hunting and killing wild animals. This quality publication contains accounts of modern terrier work, written by the enthusiasts themselves, and bears the logo of the British Field Sports Society.
I should like to give a few examples of enthusiasts' contributions to the magazine. An article published in "Earth Dog—Running Dog" in 1995 stated:
The fox can punish and his attentions can cause a terrier's head and muzzle to swell like a pumpkin, though in this day and age antibiotics control the worst effects.
An article published in the magazine in March 1996 stated:
Breaking through I found a very dead fox and a nearly-dead terrier exhausted and bearing horrendous lacerations to his head; the old boy was nearly a goner.
Finally, a 1997 article stated:
I set about moving a large rock that was now blocking my progress. It proved to be the end of the road. When I rolled it away, there was Turk and the fox both dead.
That extract is taken from a description of a 30-hour dig.
The close association of such people in registered hunts is highlighted in a gruesome article published in The Sunday Telegraph Magazine in August 1997, in which the reporter, Adam Nicholson, describes his experience at a hunt in the Lake district. The article states:
From above ground we could hear the terrible fighting below us. The screaming of the dog and fox was only partly muffled by the layers of earth and rock that separated us from it. The noise moved for about ten minutes around different parts of the earth and then went quiet … Then the huntsman said, "All right, that's us then," and headed back downhill.
The reporter, being a normal sort of person, inquired after the terrier, and received the following caring reply:
Oh … that's all right. It'll either be dead and the fox will be eating it, or the fox'll be dead and she will be eating the fox. Don't worry, I'm sure she'll be back home in a couple of days, once she's slept the whole thing off.
The reporter was told that the dog did return, but was given no details of the injuries that she would obviously have sustained.
Let me turn to the other victims: the hounds. Foxhounds do not hunt foxes by natural instinct. They are trained through the cubbing season. Cub hunting is the process by which the young and inexperienced hounds are brought into the pack and taught to chase and kill foxes that are around four or five months old. Sadly, hunts routinely destroy young foxhounds that take no interest in hunting or are not useful members of the pack. Hunts also kill hounds once they are considered too old to hunt. That usually occurs when they are around six years old—an age that is less than half their normal life expectancy. That results in the premature death of thousands of hounds that are killed by hunt kennel staff every year.
In the event of a ban, there would be no need for a single hound to be destroyed. The Canine Defence League and the RSPCA do not see any reason why hunting hounds could not be re-homed as domestic pets, or retrained and used as drag hunters. The RSPCA offered to re-home the hounds from the New Forest Buckhounds, which closed in 1998. Disgracefully, the offer was refused and every hound was wantonly destroyed, in a political move—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used up his time.

Mr. John Gummer: Right from the beginning, we have been discussing the question of morality. I would not disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North am Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) when he said that we lived in a civilised, less barbaric society. In some ways, we do. However, I find it difficult to use the word "civilised" in quite the easy way that he does, when describing a society in which old people are less well looked after by their families than ever before and in which thousands of babies are killed every day.
We live in a society in which morality is changing and in which attitudes towards morality are clearly different from what they used to be. I find it difficult to believe that a society is more moral which does not protect 16-year-old children from much older people, following the way in which we have recently changed the law. Seizing the word "moral" in a general sense for one side of the argument or the other is probably not acceptable. We must examine how we apply morality in the proposal.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who spoke about fishing, concentrated our minds considerably. She asked a serious question: what is the difference between the two issues? The answer is not a pleasant one, and it is certainly not a moral one. The difference is that there are large numbers of votes in one, and few in the other. It would be a devastating pre-election proposal if the Bill were to propose the abolition of angling. That would not be a proposal that the Prime Minister would wish to introduce. The fundamental difference is not a moral one, but an electoral one. Let us not be too naive. We are not discussing this subject today for some moral reason, but because it appears to be to the electoral advantage of the Labour party.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not.
Even if there were a moral case to be made in favour of hunting, this is neither the moment—nor, indeed, the Bill—in which it would be reasonable so to do. If we were to make that moral case, we would have to start by making the distinction between hunting with dogs, angling and game shooting. I find it extremely difficult to make that moral distinction.
The anger of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) gave away his real reason for supporting the Bill, because he based his so-called moral argument on his personal feelings. Morality is not well served by putting forward our personal feelings in these matters. Were we to do that, many of us would find ourselves having huge arguments about issues that were really matters of taste. People speak because they find something distasteful. The hon. Member for West Ham found hunting distasteful, but not fishing. Putting it bluntly, that seems not to be a matter of morality but a matter of sentimentality. The House should not legislate on the basis of sentimentality.
I speak as someone who has never hunted, but who has taken pleasure in spending time in the company of those who do, and whose constituency is lucky enough to have at least three hunts that hunt over it. It is a proper right of human beings to make the choice for themselves. It was a mistake for the hon. Member for West Ham to suggest that this argument was akin to those about chimney sweeps, the terrible conditions in which young people


worked in manufacturing industries, or slavery. In all those cases, Conservative Members, with Conservative support, fought to change the law because there was a moral basis on which to put their case. On this occasion, it is largely Conservative Members who are arguing on a moral basis.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not. I have a little more to say.
I put forward the moral case for the freedom of individuals. That freedom is crucial, perhaps even more so when we disagree with what those individuals want to do. There is no point in supporting freedom if one agrees with what people want to do. I listened to some curious arguments about the lowering of the age of consent. People were saying, "I don't see anything wrong with this. Therefore, people should be free to do it." The people I listened to with a great deal more concern were those who said, "I think that there is something wrong with this, but I still believe that people should be able to make a choice." I do not happen to agree with them, but that is a proper moral basis on which to make the argument.
A very immoral Act is being proposed. It is immoral because it is being proposed for electoral, rather than moral, reasons. It is also immoral because it is being proposed for party management reasons, and for financial reasons. I asked, on a point of order, whether hon. Members who were members of the party that had received large donations in order that the Bill should be introduced would state their interest when they spoke. I also asked whether hon. Members who were hoping for further donations would admit to that hope. So far, I have not heard from those who ought to have so stated their interest.
The proposal is not moral: it is purely political. There is no moral case for banning hunting. Such a ban would lead to the banning of game shooting and angling.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I really must finish.

Ms Candy Atherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I know the hon. Lady's views. She has not changed, even after listening to me. At least she should listen to me until the end of my speech.
There is a moral case for saying that there should be no hunting whatever. It is an odd case, because it presumes that an human being is not al animal, and has no role in the predatory chain. That is a possible case, but not a logical one. However, there can be no moral case that makes a distinction between hunting with dogs and game shooting or angling.
There is an argument that we should ban hunting for the political benefit of the Labour party, and because some people have a distaste for that kind of behaviour. That second statement is very serious.

Mr. Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not.
Many minority groups in this country need the support of the House. I return to my own moral dilemma. I was asked by a large number of people to introduce a ban on ritual slaughter. I hate ritual slaughter. I consider it deeply offensive, and the religious ground on which it is put forward does not stand up, either historically or in modern times. However, I still believe that I was right to agree that religious slaughter should continue. I did so, much as I hate it, because I believed that a greater freedom was involved: the freedom of men and women to decide for themselves. If we take that freedom away because we do not care about a particular small minority, what will happen to the other minorities? What about the Muslims and the Jews? What about some of the things that townspeople do that I find distasteful? What about groups of any kind who can be cut off, divided and left undefended?
Too much of recent history reminds us what happens when we are not prepared to stand up for the rights of minorities to do—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Mr. Martin Salter: Many of the points in favour of a ban on foxhunting and stag hunting have already been made, so I shall be mercifully brief.
I am a long-standing opponent of this barbaric sport. In Reading, I campaigned on the issue long before the 1997 general election. The publication of the Bill has reinvigorated my faith in the Government; I went into the 1997 election with the perception that we would ban foxhunting, but that we would not privatise a certain public service. My faith has been restored.
It was a privilege to serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). We witnessed the tactics of Conservative Members who successfully frustrated the will both of the country and of this Chamber.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Salter: There is no doubt that the largest number of items in my constituency mailbag—and, I suggest, that of the majority of hon. Members—are letters from people in favour of an immediate and complete ban on the sport or pastime of hunting with hounds. It is right that the matter is the subject of a Government Bill.
There is overwhelming public support for such a ban. Of all the arguments, the most specious and spurious is that the issue is one of country versus town. There is no apartheid in this country. All the poll data show that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the population are opposed to hunting with hounds—that opposition is spread between town and country.

Mr. Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a poll conducted last week, which showed that less than half the population—48 per cent.—now support a ban on hunting?

Mr. Salter: The hon. Gentleman would say that. I have been studying polls on the subject for many years; all show an overwhelming opposition to hunting with hounds.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Salter: The report of the Burns inquiry is an excellent document. As my hon. Friend the Member for


Worcester pointed out, the arguments that Members hoped it would provide in favour of hunting never emerged—in fact it will prove to be hunting's death-knell. I refer hon. Members to the exchanges between the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and myself during the debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill on 7 April. We were arguing about the likely impact of a ban on hunting on jobs. At that time, the Countryside Alliance and its Conservative supporters were claiming—as an act of faith—that more than 16,000 jobs would be at risk. What did Burns tell us? The report told us that about 800 people are directly employed by hunts, and that any secondary job loss would be confined to between 6,000 and 8,000 people. In fact, not one job need be lost, if there is a switch to drag hunting.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Salter: I advise hon. Members who disagree with the Bill's proposals—especially those in the third schedule—to visit the master of the New Forest drag hounds and to hear about the prejudice he had to put up with in the countryside when he attempted to convert his hunt to the humane sport of drag hunting. He was discriminated against; his drag hunt was suddenly barred from crossing certain land in the area.

Mr. Paice: rose—

Sir Richard Body: rose—

Mr. Salter: It is clear that there is no interest among the foxhunting fraternity in allowing drag hunting to prosper. That is why it sees drag hunting as a big threat to its arguments. It is important to nail the lie about jobs.
The Conservative party and the Countryside Alliance are desperate to get another big lie up and running—that this country is being run by a metropolitan elite of ignorant townies who do not understand the country way of life. Conservative Members are nodding. Perhaps they should reflect on the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) is chair of the rural group of Labour MPs and that Labour Members represent more rural seats than the Conservatives represent currently—or in the foreseeable future.
The Conservative party and the Countryside Alliance should realise that we are alive to their lies and trickery, as they try to scaremonger among Britain's 3 million anglers—of whom I am one. There is no logical reason why a ban on cock fighting should lead to a ban on something else. We draw a line in the sand, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) referred to angling as a sport in which we allow a fish to swallow a fly and then tear out its guts before throwing it back into the water. I and other hon. Members who fish know the truth: either we take and kill our fish humanely for the pot—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) does—as a game, trout or salmon fisherman; or, in the case of coarse fishermen such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and myself, we may catch our fish, we may photograph our fish—I even confess to occasionally

kissing my fish and to having pictures of them on my wall—but we put them back unharmed. So damaged are those creatures that I have caught the same fish on three occasions. Can anyone explain to me how people can hunt the same fox to earth dig it out, have it ripped to pieces in front of them and smear its blood on their forehead three times in a day? There are no parallels between coarse fishing, game shooting and the barbaric sport of foxhunting.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Salter: The other big lie to be nailed tonight and every time we discuss this issue is the notion that hunting has anything to do with pest control. I have taken the trouble to visit the Garth and South Berkshire hunt in my constituency, where people admitted that the pest control arguments are complete and utter tosh; and that the most acceptable, efficient and sensible way to control foxes is by lamping with a rifle and a professional gamekeeper.
The Symington hunt nailed that particular lie after the exposure that it was breeding fox cubs in order to hunt them. What on earth has that to do with pest control?

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salter: It should be blatantly obvious to the hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of giving way.

Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm whether you are taking the same line as your predecessor in the Chair—that there will be injury time for interventions during the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is perfectly correct; it is the custom of the House.

Mr. Salter: I shall still not give way; I find that it disrupts my flow.
No group of people in this country is more inappropriate to pray in aid minority rights than the Countryside Alliance and many of its Conservative supporters. Anyone at the Labour party conference in Brighton who heard the chanting and slogans emanating from the mouths of members of the Countryside Alliance about black and gay people should be under no illusions about their commitment to minority rights—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]
A recent Radio 4 programme included contributions from Robin Page—one of the most prominent activists in the Countryside Alliance—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. Anyone who heard the programme will remember one particular quotation. Robin Page said that if hunters were gay or Muslim, the Labour party would leave them alone. That tells us volumes about the alliance's interest in minority rights.
We come back to the moral argument; it is about cruelty. All civilised societies must draw a line somewhere. Yes, a minority of people are interested in pornography. Presumably, a minority of people are interested in further lowering the age of consent. We have to make decisions as to where the lines are drawn.
I conclude with one story from my favourite riverbank, part of the countryside that I know and love and in which I spend a lot of time. Will someone explain to me how, if hunting is allowed to continue, we shall have the opportunity to see the otters that are being released back into our riverside environment? Is someone going to tell me that a pack of hounds is capable of distinguishing between a mink and an otter? It is not. Such a suggestion is nonsense.
Hunting is a barbaric sport. It has no place in 21st-century Britain. It is time that it was banned, and banned now.

Mr. Peter Luff: Yesterday—on an infinitely more important issue—we had a debate that changed Members' minds. Arguments were listened to, competing viewpoints were respected, and name calling was largely avoided. My purpose it speaking today was to express the hope that the same degree of intellectual honesty might be displayed in this debate. Sadly, I have so far been disappointed. I do hope that that process can yet be changed.
I preface my remarks with a tribute to the Under-Secretary, who is leading for the Home Office on the Bill, and to his officials, who have been working very closely with our fellow members of the Middle Way Group on drafting schedule 2, which represents with great clarity the views of the Middle Way Group. We are deeply grateful to them for all they have done, with great even-handedness and fairness.
Sadly, even-handedness and fairness have not always characterised this debate. I have to say to my friends, typically on the Opposition Benches, that the supporters of hunting too often pretend that here are no problems with hunting. The enemies of hunting dismiss the arguments about human freedom and claim animal welfare gains for a ban—gains that simply do not exist. I believe that both those viewpoints are wrong.
There is a middle way—a compromise—that could settle this argument once and for all. My plea to the House is that anyone who wishes to cast a vote next month, when the three options come before us, should first settle down and read, or re-read, the Burns retort. It is not perfect—given the ridiculously short time that Lord Burns had to conduct his study, it was never going to be perfect—but it is a very good report indeed.
There are issues in the report that I believe were incompletely explored. For example, a year will not be enough to ease the impact on the hounds that will become redundant in the event of a ban. The conservation of the fox as a species and the role of hunting in conserving the species were not explored in sufficient depth by Lord Burns.
However, I believe that overall the Burns report can be considered our bible in this debate, and in that respect I quote from Lord Burns's opening letter to the Home Secretary:
This is a complex issue that is full of paradoxes.
Chief among those paradoxes is the question of the welfare of the fox. Banning foxhunting will not save the life of a single fox. Indeed, it will—in Worcestershire and

in most of England at least—lead to more foxes dying more painfully. That is a truth that those who would support option 3 must understand.
Burns says:
It is likely that, in the event of a ban on hunting, many farmers and landowners would resort to a greater degree than at present to other methods to control the numbers of foxes … None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications.
Yes, it is true that Burns's tentative conclusion is that lamping is to be preferred, but it is a heavily qualified conclusion:
Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances—
I emphasise that proviso—
has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe—
I think here particularly of Wales—
there would be a greater use of other methods.
Burns says of lamping:
It is worth noting … that lamping has its limitations. It can be time-consuming, is not always suited to the terrain and night shooting can give rise to concern on the part of those living in the area.
So I am afraid that those who hold out lamping as a panacea to address this issue are simply wrong and are misleading the public.
The point is that we must not cherry-pick Burns but must read it in its entirety. An issue on which it has been spectacularly cherry-picked is that of drag hunting. I am speaking with the chairman of the drag hunters, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), sitting in front of me. Burns says about drag hunting:
Drag and bloodhound hunting are different from live quarry hunting.
I am sure that my hon. Friend might wish to explain that difference to the House if he gets the chance.
Burns concludes—I ask the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to note this conclusion in every particular—
It is unlikely that either drag and bloodhound hunting or drag coursing would of themselves mitigate to any substantial extent any adverse effects on the rural economy or the social life of the countryside arising from a ban on hunting.
It could not be clearer than that.

Sir Richard Body: Since then, masters of the two drag hound and bloodhound organizations—there are a large number of us—have reached the conclusion that if foxhunting is abolished, it will be the end of drag hunting, too. If I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, I hope to explain why.

Mr. Luff: That is another of the complex paradoxes in this debate that I am afraid have not been studied in sufficient depth by critics of foxhunting on either side of the House. I hope that they will listen with great attention to what my hon. Friend says on that point.
Of course the Burns inquiry could not consider moral issues, and the moral issues are central to this debate. There are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said in his excellent opening speech, only


two issues that count in this debate. They are both moral issues—animal welfare and liberty. All the rest are second-order issues. They are important—I am not saying that they are unimportant—but they are none the less second-order issues.
The Burns report could not comment on the moral issues, particularly on liberty and freedom, but it illuminates that debate too. Let us hear what Burns said about rural communities:
It is clear that, especially for participants in more isolated rural communities, hunting acts as a significant cohesive force, encouraging a system of mutual support. Farmers and other landowners—many of whom feel increasingly isolated—are both the linchpins and the main beneficiaries of the system. Many of them also value hunting as an expression of a traditional, rural way of life and would strongly resent what they would see as an unnecessary and ill-informed interference with it. As a result it would increase their sense of alienation.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Luff: I am afraid that I have only four minutes left and the Middle Way Group has very little opportunity to make its position clear to the House. The time that a Member takes in replying to an intervention is taken out of the time allowed for the speech, so I feel that I must not give way. I am sorry; I should have liked to do so.
Last week, for the first time, an opinion poll showed a minority of the British people in support of a ban on hunting. Burns conducted opinion polls in areas where hunting is practised. He said:
Broadly speaking, support was highest in all areas amongst men, older people, those who had lived in the area for a long time, people working in rural occupations and those in lower social class bands.
I urge Labour Members—they are often motivated by class issues in this debate—to reflect very carefully on who they would most seriously affect if hunting were to be banned.
Burns concluded:
The research findings do not really support the claim that is sometimes made that, even in rural areas with a strong hunting tradition, there is much greater opposition to hunting than is generally supposed.
Burns destroys a lot of myths, and I urge Members on both sides of the argument to study the report with an open mind. Those who would criminalise foxhunters cannot now claim that they have overwhelming support on their side.
It is true that I believe that my constituents should be free to hunt; that is no secret. I know that many of them would admit privately that all is not well with hunting. Things do happen that have undesirable consequences for animal welfare—I agree with many of the things that have been said about terrier work in today's debate—for public safety, and for the right of individuals to prevent trespass on their land. Hunts do sometimes infringe the liberties of rural people. It is precisely these issues that the middle way's compulsory and tough licensing system would address.
Self-regulation is greatly to be preferred, but it is now too late for that. Tougher self-regulation 20 years ago might have prevented the debate from ever reaching this stage, but we are where we are, and Burns, looking at the practice in other countries, concludes:

We consider that it might be productive, in the absence of a ban, to explore the possibility of introducing some form of licensing system, possibly on the lines of those which exist to regulate hunting in some other countries.
I make three pleas. My first plea is to the whole House: please read the Burns report, and the Middle Way Group policy document that every hon. Member has received, with an open mind before finally concluding how to vote, in January, on the three options. My second plea is that supporters of the status quo, which is what clause 1 offers, should consider whether their position is really tenable. Is it based on a true sense of political reality? Will we just go into the process time and again until hunting is finally banned? Does not the middle way offer a more stable solution?
My third plea is to the opponents of hunting. They should consider with open minds—I use that phrase again—what the real impact on animal welfare and human liberty will be and ask themselves whether there might not be a better way.
The Bill is a distraction from the real issues facing the countryside and the nation and is marginal to the real animal welfare issues, so I shall vote against it this evening. I expect that I shall lose that vote, but I shall throw myself with renewed effort into securing a more objective and better informed debate on the subject than has been the case so far.

8 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for introducing the Bill in this way; it is the right way to do it. I take a certain amount of pleasure in uniquely disagreeing with him. I do not think that I have ever done so before on a policy matter.
I should like to refer to a comment made several times by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He kept saying that the Bill has been introduced for electoral reasons. If that is the case, it implies that he believes that the electorate are all on our side, so he loses his argument either way—

Mr. Banks: And right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) wants us to win.

Mr. Pickthall: That is right.
I will vote for a total ban because I believe that hunting with dogs is wrong. I believe that it cannot be wrong sometimes but okay at others just because it has been licensed, and I shall explain why in a moment.
The Bill provides an opportunity for the House to ban hunting with dogs, but, in the past couple of years, those on both sides of the argument have had an increasing tendency to discuss it almost entirely as though it were about foxhunting and nothing else. The Country Landowners Association briefing, which we have all received, is entirely about foxhunting; it mentions no other mammal. Pro-hunters follow that line because it allows them to concentrate on the arguments about vermin control. Many anti-hunters concentrate on foxhunting, too. I am not certain why, but I suspect that it is because foxhunting conjures up the panoply of ceremonial involved in hunting and there is a touch of class-war instinct in that for many people.
The Bill will outlaw stag hunting, deer hunting, hare coursing, hare hunting and mink hunting. I have never witnessed a stag or mink hunt—or only on film—but I have frequently witnessed hare coursing. I want to spend a couple of minutes telling those hon. Members who have not seen it what that gruesome activity involves.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman wants a complete ban, and if the House votes for one, can he say, as a member of the Labour party, whether he has obtained any assurance from the Government about what they will do if the House of Commons votes for a total ban but the House of Lords votes for registration? Will they press ahead with a total ban under the Parliament Acts, or will they choose the compromise, which some people suspect may happen?

Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. It is not for me to second-guess the mysteries of the manoeuvres that will take place if that eventuality arises. That is a matter for the usual channels.
My constituency is the unwilling host to the blue riband event of hare coursing—the Waterloo cup at Altcar—which is held each February. It attracts, I stress, a mainly urban audience of several thousand. Hares are encouraged to breed in the area. Some years they have been netted elsewhere—usually in East Anglia, but even in Ireland—and brought to Altcar to be coursed. It is essentially a spectator sport; it does not even have the excuse of people enjoying the thrill of the chase and being involved in that way.
Hares are beaten out of the longer grass one at a time on to the course, which resembles a large football field with an embankment around it on three sides. A man called the slipper holds two rival greyhounds and releases them when the hare bolts past him Whether the hare is caught and killed depends partly—perhaps largely—on how soon the hounds are released, and visitors such as myself never see a hare killed. As soon as we leave, the slaughter recommences.
Points are scored by the dogs for turning the hare away from its escape route. When a hare is caught by one dog, it is almost invariably caught also by the other dog and usually pulled in half. The League Against Cruel Sports described that activity as creating a "living rope"; it is absolutely appalling. I can hardly imagine anything worse, and Burns sums it up by saying:
This experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare—
a wonderful understatement. Hares that escape—many do—are often pursued unofficially in contiguous fields by coursing supporters with their dogs.
No one could describe the hare as vermin. I know of no farmer—and there are many in my constituency—who complains that hares are pests. On the contrary, everyone I know regards the hare as a magnificent and exciting mammal. People regret the fact that the brown hare is under severe pressure from hunting, but especially from changes in agricultural practices.
I know the gamekeeper at Altcar and I admire his work on the estate, except for his hare-coursing activities. I support him, particularly in his constant battle against illegal hare coursing. That activity is carried out by men, mostly from the conurbations of east Lancashire and Merseyside, who arrive in vans, set their dogs to hunt hare and leave the killed hares where they lie. They physically

threaten farmers who try to keep them off their land—they threaten them with personal violence or with burning their hayricks. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has similar experiences on his patch. How can we morally combat that unacceptable activity to any effect when organised coursing is accepted, simply because it has a species of licence—the third way's proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "The middle way."] I beg its pardon. [Interruption.] They seem a bit the same to me.
I note recent reports that the pro-hunting organisations are prepared to jettison hare coursing so long as they can retain foxhunting. If that is true, it shows that at last the loathsomeness of hare coursing is filtering through even to the most confirmed hunters. I am pleased to note that the Bill deals with coursing separately and specifically in schedule 3.
I was brought up just outside a small town in Cumbria and now represent a huge rural area of Lancashire. I know a good deal about the harshness of rural life and about the speed and efficiency with which the farming community disposes of pests, with or without dogs. An argument in defence of hunting that depends on saying that it is an innocent preoccupation of gentle rural folk who are being persecuted by an urban majority obsessed with anthropomorphism is bull.
Hunting appeals to anyone—rural or urban—who wishes to pursue animals solely for pleasure. My personal belief is that it is only acceptable to kill animals for food, for self-defence or the defence of others or other animals, or when an animal is sick or wounded. I find it impossible to understand human beings who enjoy and derive vicarious pleasure from seeing a wild mammal torn to bits by dogs that have been specially bred and trained to do so. Incidentally, I do not know of any angler or fisherman who fishes by means of specially trained dogs.
The pro-hunting lobby claims that a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs represents the oppression of a minority by the majority. A letter in The Times on Monday from a lady in Ashburton says:
Law based on the opinions of the majority is nearly always unsound and illiberal, and so would the proposed ban on hunting be.
That is a fine principle on which to base our constitution and law making. It should not need to be pointed out that virtually all legislation infringes the freedoms of particular minorities and prevents them from perpetrating certain acts. The crucial factor in legislation is the assessment of the nature and acceptability of the acts that are being legislated against, or for. That is one of the reasons we are sent here as representatives of our constituents, not as delegates.
However, we now find—it was repeated by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—that the pro-hunting lobby and the middle way have shifted their position. We hear now that we should not legislate for a ban because only 48 per cent.—a minority—support it. They argue that if it is a majority view it is unacceptable, but if it is a minority view it is also unacceptable. That is brilliant. These are wonderful Morton's fork arguments, and it is small wonder that the Burns inquiry refused to wander into that quagmire.
The pro-hunters also tell us that the ban would infringe the civil liberties of hunters, and they invoke the Human Rights Act 1998 and the articles of the convention on which it is based. In particular, they invoke article 1 on


the enjoyment of property rights and article 8 on the respect for private life. That argument does not bear a moment's examination. Let us consider what people are allowed to do in their private life or with their private property. Of course we should be able to enjoy our private property under the Human Rights Act, but we are not allowed to beat a dog to death with a stick in our own kitchen or murder a cat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I am not sure what I find more worrying—the fact that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) kisses fish, or the fact that he thought it appropriate to tell us. However, I wish to correct him on one point. Like him, I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). The hon. Member for Reading, West alleged that those of us who support hunting had used parliamentary tactics to waste time and delay the Bill's progress. If he had attended the Committee as often as I did—I attended every sitting—he would remember that for its first two sittings, those of us who supported hunting did not say a word. It is a matter of fact that the friends of the hon. Member for Worcester filibustered their own Bill for a good part of the Committee stage.
I do not have much time, so I will have to gallop through my contribution. We are used to galloping in my part of Leicestershire, and I hope that my constituents will be able to continue to do that for many years to come.
I represent Harborough, and there are five packs of hounds in the district—three packs of foxhounds and two foot packs. I accept that not all my constituents support the view that I take, and I fully respect the views of those who have written to me because they oppose the continuation of hunting. However, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) suggested, my job is not to act as a delegate for any particular section of my community, but to speak my mind. I hope that the other Members who contribute to the debate will also do that.
The Bill is a sad commentary on the Government's sense of priorities. We are led to believe that there are very few weeks of this Parliament left, and it is sad that a Government who spent 18 years in opposition and should be bristling with ideas for the improvement of this country, can produce nothing more than this Bill, plus some relatively unimportant, if worthy, Bills. However, this Bill seems to enthuse Labour Members more than anything else.
There is a crisis in the rural economy, not only in Leicestershire but in other parts of the country, too. Our farms are in a terrible position. Farm incomes are at their worst for many years and people are leaving the industry. Farmers have always been susceptible to suicide, but the suicide rate has never been worse. Tens of thousands of people are leaving the farming industry each year, so the Government would do far better to concentrate on alleviating the crisis in the countryside than on causing tension and dissension among Members by introducing this Bill.
This is an inept Bill. I assume that it will receive its Second Reading and that the third option of a total ban, which is supported by the hon. Member for Worcester and his friends, will gain the majority support of Members when the Bill has its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The Bill is inept because it does not take account of the following problem. My constituency covers the whole of south-east Leicestershire, and there are not enough policemen to cope with the problems that already exist. At weekends—particularly on Fridays and Saturdays—there are often only two policemen on duty to cover approximately 500 square miles.
I intervened when the Home Secretary made his opening speech. If he can persuade me that, as a consequence of the need to increase police numbers to enforce the Bill, there will be sufficient police officers to patrol rural areas to ensure that people do not break the law and to bring them to justice if they do, that will be another matter. However, he was patently unable to say that he had the resources, let alone the political will, to provide sufficient additional policemen in rural England to police the Bill.
Nowhere in the Bill is there a provision that will promote animal welfare. Even if all those who want an end to hunting have animal welfare as their primary motive, it is self-evident that there are better ways to promote animal welfare than those in the Bill. I shall not discuss the Bill's defects in that regard now, but it is clear that, although animal welfare may be in the minds of the supporters of the middle way and the total ban options, provisions to promote it are nowhere to be found in the Bill. If the Bill is to have any meaning, the House should concentrate on promoting animal welfare measures rather than on banning what is currently—I am glad to say—a lawful activity.
We are debating the condemnation of an activity of which some people disapprove. The result will be bad law that is arbitrary in relation to animal welfare and draconian in relation to human activity.
I assume that the total ban option will leave this House and go to another place, but the Bill is unfair and unjust. It overturns a hugely important aspect of our culture—the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof should be firmly on the prosecution. If the banning option is passed, the Bill will place the burden of proving an exception firmly on the defence. That is unjust. I do not know whether this point has been considered by those who oppose my argument, but the Bill plainly contravenes the European convention on human rights.
No doubt the Bill will be carefully trawled over in the new year, but it is, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, an unnecessary and fundamental attack on the right of an individual to conduct himself in a way that, although it may not be approved of by many others, should not be criminalised. That is a basic matter of civil liberties. For all the fine sophistry and semantics of the so-called moral philosophers on the Government Benches—I have yet to hear a moral argument from them—they have yet to come up with a convincing argument that the Bill will advance the human condition or promote animal welfare. It will do no more than attack and undermine the rights and liberties of the citizen.
I trust that the fanatics on the other side of the argument will pause a little before they unravel this country yet further. I hope that they will pause before they do untold


damage to an already weak and diffident agricultural community, which is seeing its lifeblood trickle away day by day. If they wish to sustain this country's unity, and to see it enjoy a diversity of people and interests, they should have the good sense and decency not to support the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) says that he has not heard Labour Members advance a moral argument. Cruelty to animals is a moral issue—I am speaking slowly so that he can follow my reasoning. The law defines cruelty to animals as the causing of unnecessary suffering. The question is whether hunting with dogs—foxhunting, hare coursing and stag hunting—causes unnecessary suffering. The hon. and learned Gentleman must wrestle with that concept. I have already settled it in my own mind.

Mr. Garnier: I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, because we share a fond interest in fine wine and fine whisky—

Mr. Prentice: I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman is to advance his argument, he should show me what part of the Bill or its schedules relates to the moral argument that he has mentioned.

Mr. Prentice: The consequence of banning hunting would be that cruelty would not arise, because animals would not be hunted by dogs.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made a curious and eccentric Conservative party conference speech, before flouncing out without having the courtesy to listen to the next speaker. He said that we were introducing the Bill to garner votes in urban areas. Many people follow and support the Pendle Forest and Craven hunt in my constituency. If I lose the votes of constituents because I advocate a ban on hunting, that is politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we go through life constantly drawing lines in the sand on issue after issue, to show that we will go so far, but no further. However, the middle—or muddled—way group try to have it every way. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) talked about cherry picking. If anyone has done that, it is the people who advocate the middle way. I shall deal with them in a moment.
The official Opposition should make their position clear. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), their Front-Bench spokesman on this issue, was asked several times whether they would repeal the Bill if it reaches the statute book. The latest edition of "Livin' Country", the publication of the Union of Country Sports Workers, quotes the Leader of the Opposition, at a side meeting during the Conservative party conference, as saying:
I cannot give any absolute assurance about what we do in a new Parliament. We cannot get people thinking that if things are changed they can be changed back easily.

Why does he not get off the fence?

Mr. Hogg: I will get off the fence, but I can speak only for myself and some of my colleagues. If we get back into government with a majority and the Bill is passed, we will do our outmost to ensure that hunting is lawful once again.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not speak for the official Opposition—or perhaps he does: the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) may have to look over his shoulder.

Mr. Hogg: He may indeed.

Mr. Prentice: That is a leadership challenge.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to draw your attention to what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said from a sedentary position about the leader of his party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Prentice: Labour Members, and some Conservative Members—such as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—are going with the grain of public opinion, and we have overwhelming support. In a debate in June, one of the foremost proponents of hunting, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), conceded that an overwhelming majority of people disapprove of hunting with dogs and want the practice stopped.
The poll that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire shows that there is a majority in favour of the ban, but that the proportion has dipped below 50 per cent. Some 48 per cent. want a complete ban, 37 per cent. want tight regulation, and only 14 per cent. want the status quo. If the people who want tight regulation are not satisfied with the regulation, they might move into the camp that wants a complete ban. It is our job to persuade them to do so.
The people who do not need persuading are the younger generation. Only 10 days ago, I went to Barrowford county primary school and addressed an assembly of a couple of hundred children aged between four and 11. I told them that I would mention them in the Chamber of the House of Commons. We were discussing animal welfare issues and I asked how many wanted hunting banned. Without any prompting, a forest of little arms went up. Only two or three did not want it banned. That is a typical response. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members, who are chuntering in their usual way, spoke to young people in the primary schools in their constituencies, they would not find a majority in favour of continuing the killing for fun. They should believe me.
As I said in an earlier debate, the other myth that needs to he put to rest is that the issue divides town and country.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman said that killing for fun was not to be permitted. Does he fish? Does he support fishing, or would he ban it?

Mr. Prentice: We have been round that circuit many times. There is a difference between killing for food and


killing for fun. [Interruption.] Conservative Members will have to take a hold of themselves. This is a moral issue. I think that it is wrong to kill for fun.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Prentice: Everyone wants to intervene on me. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).

Mrs. Golding: I kill for fun. I enjoy fishing, but I do not always eat the fish. So I kill for fun, and I have to admit it.

Mr. Banks: Coarse fishing? You are a crap fisher.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have sedentary interventions—certainly not of that nature.

Mr. Prentice: The argument is not about town versus country. A poll in The Daily Telegraph, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) alluded, showed that 77 per cent. of rural dwellers—I represent a constituency with a big rural collar—are against hunting with hounds.
The issue is not one of Labour versus the Conservatives, although it is often posed in such a way. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for North Thanet are not the only ones who want hunting with dogs to be banned. What about Steve Norris, the standard bearer for the Conservatives in the London mayoral elections? What about the astronomer, Patrick Moore? He is against hunting. What about your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the previous Parliament, Dame Janet Fookes? They are all leading Conservatives who want hunting with dogs to be banned.
What about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? It is not a nest of rolling-eyed lefties. It is a blue chip organisation, of which millions of people are members. Who is the patron of the RSPCA? It is Her Majesty the Queen, is it not? The RSPCA has written to us to say:
the only option that can be fully justified on scientific, common sense and moral grounds is a complete ban.
I shall be voting for a complete ban. I am disappointed, because I get on well with him, that the Home Secretary will not be doing so, but his view does not reflect the majority in the House. We shall see.
I am a keen student of the third way, but I have been looking at the comments of the Middle Way Group, which was set up two and a half years ago. I went to its pamphlet for guidance on what it suggests, but it gave me no help.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and I appeared on the Lucy Meacock programme on Granada Television on 2 November. Apparently, millions of viewers in the north-west tuned in to see that duel. After being prompted by a member of the audience, the hon. Gentleman told Granada viewers that the Middle Way Group did not have a policy on hare coursing. Apparently, it has a policy on hare hunting, and there is a difference. The group has sent a manifesto to everyone, and as I read it, I saw a little drawing of the hare. The Middle Way

Group has a policy on hare hunting but not on hare coursing. What does Burns say about hare coursing? The inquiry found that
hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes.
It is not that hares are a pest, but that people kill for fun. Hare numbers have declined dramatically. The hare was even part of the biodiversity agreement negotiated by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It has been at the forefront of the argument that drag hunting is the perfect alternative. It argues that we could carry on hunting in our red coats—if anyone still wears them—and that hunting horns could still be blown. It argues that there could be the same numbers of hounds—there is no need to put them down—followers and horses, that all social activities that revolve around the hunt could continue, that jobs will be retained and that everything will go on as before if a drag replaces a fox.
The matter was discussed in the Burns inquiry. I was one of three witnesses invited by Lord Burns to speak on behalf of drag hunting. The inquiry's examination of drag hunting was exemplary. We sat in a square. The inquiry team sat on one side, expert advisers on another, those of us who gave evidence on drag hunting and a representative of the National Farmers Union—who, incidentally, agreed entirely with us and we agreed with him—sat on another and representatives of the RSPCA and others against hunting sat on the fourth side. They argued that what we did could take the place of hunting. I hope that hon. Members have read the Burns report of that encounter. There can be no doubt that the inquiry came down on our side.
Moreover, the RSPCA hauled in some expert on drag hunting who said that we did not know what we were doing here in England and that we ought to go to Germany where they were much more efficient. The poor inquiry team flew over to Germany for a day to see some drag hunting, but returned none the wiser.
Drag hunting cannot be an alternative. We in drag hunting have had to counter that argument, which I hope has now been knocked on the head.
Matters are, however, much worse than that. Although hon. Members support drag hunting, some of us have considered the outcome for our recreation if foxhunting comes to an end. Yesterday. I discussed the future with my counterpart—the chairman of the other organisation that represents drag hunting—who authorised me to speak on her behalf. We cannot expand. Our problem is that we do not help farmers at all; we are their guests.
Most packs of drag hounds can hunt for only 24 to 25 days a year—once every weekend in the winter months. Most packs cover the same amount of country as seven, eight or nine packs of foxhounds. One difficulty is that ours is a purely equestrian sport. Our followers see very little of hounds working, but they want lots of obstacles to jump over. Those who manage packs of drag


hounds will say that, to make a hunt worth while, we must provide some 30 to 35 obstacles. If we do not, people will not turn out, we will get no subscriptions and that will be the end of us.
There are now very few natural obstacles in the countryside. There are a few hedges, but we have to trim most before we can get over them. A little simple arithmetic shows that the average pack of drag hounds requires 300 to 350 obstacles to be built for the season, but we cannot do that, given our limited resources. Our average field is about 30, more than half of whom are women and children; perhaps only 10 or 15 are men and therefore physically able to build the fences and do the necessary work. They all have jobs to do.

Ms Julia Drown: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that women cannot build fences?

Sir Richard Body: That intervention is comparable to the completely off-beam speech made by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who talked arrant nonsense about drag hunting and refused to give way, even after he had made outrageous remarks about the pack of hounds of which I am chairman

Mr. Banks: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views and I am trying to follow his argument carefully. However, I wonder whether he will—or if he can—get to the point and explain why, if he is able to pursue his sport of drag hunting now, he will be unable to do so if foxhunting is banned. How does the question of obstacles relate to this issue? Will they disappear if foxhunting is banned? I do not understand in what way the two activities are linked.

Sir Richard Body: The subject of hunting does not lend itself to soundbites, which is one of the problems that we face in countering the specious points that are made about hunting.
I am not here to defend foxhunting. I am expressing the views of the members of the organisation of which I am chairman. They are very concerned about their future, and they believe, in good faith, that if foxhunting comes to an end, so will drag hunting.

Mr. Banks: Why?

Sir Richard Body: I thought that I had made it clear: ours is an equestrian sport that requires a substantial number of jumps.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument quite clearly. He is saying that people who pursue foxhunting can probably contribute more to the creation of obstacles in the countryside that are, in turn, used by drag hunters.
I shall take his argument a little further. Many of us would support his view that drag hunting is an effective sport. If that is true, he should argue that, like many other sports, drag hunting should receive financial support from organisations such as the Sports Council and the national lottery. That then—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a long enough intervention.

Sir Richard Body: I am against farming being subsidised, but it would be too much to have my

recreation subsidised too. For every pack of drag hounds throughout the country, there are about eight packs of foxhounds. They have many more people to help them. They are opening up the countryside by erecting hunt jumps, in a way that we cannot. If foxhound packs come to an end, it is pretty obvious that the jumps will not be maintained and that they will go.
Drag hounds cannot take over all the country of foxhound packs. So much of that country is on land that farmers do not wish us to use. As a general rule, we go over only grassland or set-aside land. The pack of hounds of which I am chairman—I am no longer master, having been superannuated—has in its area eight packs of foxhounds, and we are almost entirely dependent on foxhound supporters erecting obstacles. We put up a few, but we do not have sufficient manpower—the farmers and farm workers who support foxhunting.
Four joint masters do the work. One is a riding instructor, one is an industrial chemist, one is a computer engineer and the fourth is a hard-working wife of a farm manager. They cannot take time off. If it is thought that I should take time off to do the work, I shall go to the pairing Whip and ask that I might go fence building on a Thursday, but I think that he might give me a rather robust answer. I am sure that my constituents in Lincolnshire would not wish me to go fence building when they feel that I should be in the House. What I say about my pack goes for virtually all of them. I am authorised to say that on behalf of the drag-hunting world.

Mr. Garnier: Many people on the other side of the argument think that the abolition of foxhunting will be mitigated by the wider practice of drag hunting. Is not the problem that whereas foxhunts provide services to landowners and farmers, such as the removal of fallen stock, drag hunters cannot provide those benefits to the landowner?

Sir Richard Body: That is right. I only hope that Labour Members will read the Burns report more carefully. It carried out the most careful inquiry, given the time that was available. It came down in favour of the evidence that I and the other two representatives of drag hunting gave—that it is not an alternative to foxhunting.
I go further than that. We are now concerned—it is the view of both organizations—that if foxhunting goes, drag hunting will be virtually impossible to pursue; it will be possible only in a few areas where there is, for example, Ministry of Defence land, over which some packs are able to go now.
I am expressing my own views and those of the two organisations to which I have referred. I hope that as the debate continues, as it will for some time yet, no one who is advocating the abolition of foxhunting will persist in the argument that drag hunting can take its place. No one should fail to realise that drag hunting will be in danger if a ban is imposed on foxhunting.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Most of us who have taken part in the debate feel a certain sense of déjà vu. Those who take an active part in debates on foxhunting could be described as the usual suspects. Most of us have seen one another before. We tend to repeat the same arguments. It is with a certain sense of refreshment,


therefore, that I greet the innovation of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), on the Conservative Front Bench, who introduced the blend of extremism and opportunism which in recent weeks we have come to associate with his leader. He said that he opposed even the pathetic option No. 1, which is favoured by the Countryside Alliance. He proposes to vote against the Bill on Second Reading, even though one of the options is that proposed by the Countryside Alliance.
Unless I am mistaken, we have yet to hear from a single Member who supports option No. 1 and who proposes to support the Bill with a view to favouring that option. With respect to the parliamentary draftsmen who worked on it, I fear that they might have wasted their time. However, Conservative Front Benchers have failed to commit their party to restore hunting. On the one hand, they are more extreme than the Countryside Alliance, yet, on the other, they would not bring it back.
In principle, this ought not to be a party political issue and I acknowledge that distinguished Opposition Members take a different view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. However, rather than pursue the party political issues, I want specifically to examine the six arguments that I have heard during the debate from opponents of a ban. If our debate is to be useful, we should listen to each other's arguments and respond to them.
First, opponents of a ban drew a religious analogy—that we should not ban hunting because we do not ban halal or kosher meat out of respect for religious minorities. Hunting may be many things, but it is not a religion.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He might be referring to my previous intervention, but I certainly did not make that suggestion, although I did say that the matter touches on an individual's conscience. If one talks to people who hunt, one can easily ascertain how deeply it affects their conscience and how deeply they object to a ban. They are often people who lead moral lives, participating actively in the community in a wide variety of ways, which should command a great deal of respect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Dr. Palmer: I accept that a fundamental issue of liberty is at stake and I shall return to that. However, the special tolerance that we grant to people who follow a religious belief different from of our own stands in a slightly different category from that of people who follow a sporting activity different from our own.
Secondly, it has been asserted repeatedly that it will be hard for the police to enforce a ban and that it will be necessary to conjure up new police forces to pursue hunts around the countryside. Again, hunting is many things, but it is not a pastime suitable for operation by stealth. It is difficult to imagine a stealth hunt that secretly pursues foxes across the countryside. I do not believe that it will be difficult to enforce that aspect of the ban.
Thirdly, it has been argued that, although hunting may be cruel and may cause distress, the alternatives, which would be necessary, would be worse. We know that, in the overwhelming majority of the British Isles, hunting

causes the death of only a small number of foxes—some say 2.5 per cent., some. 5 per cent. Hunting is clearly not primarily a form of pest control.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Dr. Palmer: I accept that the Welsh uplands are a special case. However, in general, throughout most of Britain, the replacement for hunting is nothing, because hunting is a sport, not a form of pest control.

Mr. Banks: It is a lowland sport.

Dr. Palmer: Yes, it is a lowland sport.
Fourthly, it has been suggested that a hunt ban would be divisive—either a town versus country issue or even one of class envy. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
The town versus country claim is irresponsible for it attempts to divide Britain. My constituency covers both town and country and I find plenty of rural opposition to hunting …
The same applies across the parties. As someone who has hunters in his own family, I would oppose hunting if it was practised exclusively by members of the Trades Union Congress. It is wrong because it is cruel. It is not wrong because of some social reason. That is a red herring.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks very courteously. Will he confirm that he is also opposed to shooting and fishing, as he confirmed in the previous debate?

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for the intervention. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, the great majority of hon. Members are not opposed to shooting and fishing. I personally oppose all forms of sport that do not lead to the animal being eaten but cause distress or death to the animal. That, for me, includes the type of fishing that results in the fish being put in a glass frame and hung up, and it includes shooting for sport. That is my personal view. Those of us who hold that view must accept that such forms of sport will not be banned. The only issue on the table is the banning of hunting.
Fifthly, there is the suggestion that no real suffering is involved. That has been heard less since the Burns report, which is explicit on the matter. In the terminology of the science, the statement that hunting
seriously compromises the welfare of the fox
is quite definite, and stronger than most of us had expected.
I refer hon. Members to John Bryant's book, "Animal Sanctuary", in which he describes a fox that escaped a hunt and died from the terror to which it had been exposed. We are discussing not just the cruelty of the hunt if the fox is caught, but the cruelty of the hunt as such.
Finally, I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The fundamental issue in the debate is liberty versus compassion. We are asking ourselves whether it is right that a sport that inevitably involves suffering for animals should be practised in Britain. I do not believe that it is right. The great majority of the British people do not believe that it is right. I accept that the hon. Gentleman feels differently and that he


considers it an issue of fundamental liberty. I believe that the liberty to inflict suffering in the name of sport is not a liberty worth preserving.

Mr. Grieve: I thank the hon. Gentleman again. Unlike many of his colleagues, he has taken an absolutist standpoint, and I respect him for it. The Burns report suggests that the objective evidence that the degree of suffering that may be caused to a hunted animal is so different from that which is caused to animals in other settings does not justify the hon. Gentleman's point and the infringement of other people's liberties. If I thought that the contrary was the case and that the matter was exceptional, I could be moved in my views, but as there is no such objective evidence, I am not so moved.

Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman, like others before him, is attempting to make the best be the enemy of the good. It would obviously be delightful to eliminate all forms of suffering simultaneously. We have one particular form before us, and we should tackle that.
This is a time for decision. In his startlingly convoluted speech, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is temporarily absent, supported a ban but opposed the use of the Parliament Act. We must accept that it is possible that the House of Lords will take a different view from the House of Commons on the matter. If the Parliament Act is not used, the issue will go on and on. The general public are fed up with it; they want a decision by Parliament, and we should have the courage and conviction to use the Parliament Act if necessary, and get the mandate for that from the electorate.
I support the Bill. I support the Second Reading. I do not understand how those who support options Nos. 1 and 2 also oppose Second Reading. Even the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) opposes Second Reading, which would enable us to consider his option. Beyond that, I support option No. 3. I believe that by doing that, we will reflect the wishes of the great majority of the people, and we will not be doing liberty any serious harm.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is strange that the Bill should be presented at this time, and strong political points could be made about that. However, I have engaged in this argument for as long as I have been in public life, and I have always believed that the right way of approaching it is to consider the views of those who oppose hunting to be as sincerely held as the views of those who support it. Certainly, I believe that Members of Parliament whose views are different from mine are sincere.
The debate is about liberty and proportionality. The only possible justification for banning a sport, activity or recreation such as hunting is a demonstration that it is significantly or unnecessarily cruel—and worse than alternative methods of controlling the fox population—and can be distinguished from other sports and pastimes involving the taking of animals lives, such as game shooting and fishing. The Government are congratulating themselves on passing the Human Rights Act 1998, thus incorporating the European convention on human rights into our law. This legislation is justifiable only if the ban that they seek can be shown to be necessary and proportionate, and I do not believe that it can.
Although I disagreed with virtually all the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), I was pleased to hear him say that his constituents who hunted and supported hunting were thoroughly decent people. I hope it will be accepted that many hundreds of my constituents—in fact, I suspect there are a few thousand—who support hunting passionately are also sincere and decent, and are knowledgeable countrymen. It is necessary to stand back and consider what hunting actually involves. Can a ban be justified on animal welfare grounds?

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way of judging the propriety of an activity is to consider the kind of people who support it?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is a fair point. I suggest that Labour Members should talk quietly to those with whose views they profoundly disagree, and whose activity—which those people passionately support—they wish to ban. Labour Members should find out what sort of people they are.
As I was saying, a ban of this sort cannot be justified unless there are compelling reasons in its favour. It was greatly to the credit of an earlier post-war Labour Government with a massive majority, that of Mr. Attlee, that when this matter—which has been around for a long time—was raised, arousing just as much passion, they commissioned an independent inquiry. The resulting Scott-Henderson report demonstrated that the conditions necessary for a ban did not exist.
I was very glad that the Home Secretary, and the Government as a whole, asked Lord Burns to produce a report. The least that can be said of the report is that it shows that the conditions necessary for an outright ban are not there.
I shall oppose Second Reading, but if the Bill gains a majority—as I suspect it will—I shall argue for either option 1 or option 2. I hope to play a constructive part in that so that hunting, about which I know a good deal, can continue when it is conducted properly. I know a good deal about hunting because my father, who was a barrister and high court judge, as well as a scholarly person, was, none the less, a hunter and master of hounds. He hunted to hounds—in fact they were harriers—as did my stepmother. I therefore grew up in those surroundings. I have done game shooting all my life and a certain amount of fishing. I have to admit that I am not a very skilful fisherman, although many members of my family are.
Under two Labour Governments, a majority of Members have been opposed to hunting, so those Governments have stood back and ordered an independent report. It is fair to say that the Burns report demonstrates that there is not a case for an outright ban on hunting. Until such a case can be made, it is not right to proceed.
However, we are proceeding, so I shall analyse the arguments. Animal welfare is put as the case for the ban. However, all hon. Members present today recognise that the fox population grows enormously in the breeding season. It increases to about 600,000 and has to be controlled. One may say that not that many lambs, chickens or other farm animals are injured or harried, but the numbers are significant. Those whose animals are harried tend not to be rich, and they live close to the countryside. I could never outdo the passionate and


accurate speech that the Minister for Sport made when we debated this matter before and she was free to do so from the Back Benches. She knew and understood the matter and, if I may say so respectfully, the points that she made could not have been made more attractively or tellingly. They certainly rang true for me as someone who, like her, was lucky enough to be brought up in the countryside.

Dr. Palmer: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that fox control is important, how does he explain the fact that foxhunting accounts for only an extremely small percentage of the foxes that are controlled?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is right. The proportion of foxes killed by hunts is comparatively small—only a few thousand—compared with the hundreds of thousands that die of natural causes and other methods of killing, principally shooting or snaring. That brings me to a central point in the debate, which needs to be understood. The people who go foxhunting and are close to it are close to the countryside. They tend to come from farming communities and are close to them. They understand their quarry and respect the fox. They want the numbers to be controlled, but they would not wish to treat a fox cruelly in a bear-baiting way, setting dogs on it or otherwise mistreating it. I have watched films produced by opponents—misguided opponents, not sincere ones—which have sought to show pictures taken at night of foxes being harried by dogs. That has little to do with the subject; indeed, it has nothing at all to do with it.
There is a balance of nature in areas where there are hunts. There are people in those areas who support foxhunting passionately. Nevertheless, they do not wish to destroy the fox, but to control its numbers. They enjoy hunting and are fascinated by venery—the ancient art of the sport of hunting, which requires a deep knowledge of one's quarry. In exactly the same way, fishermen take trouble over rivers: they maintain the habitat and understand the trout, salmon or coarse fish. There is great skill in coarse fishing, and fishermen know which fish feed off the bottom and which come to the surface, and they know how to catch them. Of course, they kill a large number of fish for sport, but they do that carefully, and the sport should not be banned. Likewise with hunting, one will always find a population of foxes in hunting country. In an area where there is no hunting, one is apt to find very few or no foxes.
I believe passionately in a balance of nature. For 20 years I have been privileged to represent a constituency where people hunt. We have two hunts in Bedfordshire. The people who hunt really believe in it. We know from the Burns report that it is part of the way of life in Devon and Somerset and in Cumbria and Leicestershire. They are the utterly decent people who participate in the sport, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin recognised.
The only justification for banning hunting would be if it could objectively be shown to be absolutely cruel and much worse than the alternatives. Burns showed that the alternatives inevitably involve some suffering. It is much better to stay with the status quo. Liberty, freedom and proportionality are what the debate is all about, so I would ask those right hon. and hon. Members who do not agree

with me to think very carefully about the Bill before they force it down the throats of the decent citizens of this country.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I do not think that I am one of the usual suspects in this debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) described them, but before the general election I declared to the people whom I was seeking to persuade to vote for me exactly where I stood on this issue. A letter setting out my views was regularly displayed in the town centres in my constituency right up to the election, and what I shall say tonight is consistent with what I said then.
The main reason why I hold these views is that I believe that hunting is cruel. I reached that conclusion by studying at great length what the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had to say, and most people respect that orgnisation. I consider hunting to be unnecessarily cruel. The only real value in these pursuits is pleasure. For me, foxhunting, like cock fighting, bear baiting and badger baiting, belongs in the past. Foxhunting, hare hunting, hare coursing and stag hunting are relics of the past.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the unforeseen consequences of the Bill would be that there would be no more point-to-points held in the Vale of York, for example?

Mr. Blizzard: I do not accept that that is the case and I shall explain why later in my speech.
In the three and a half years or so since I was elected, I have had the opportunity to review my thoughts and to study more information, including the very valuable Burns report. Last night, I looked again at the report and found that in his summary conclusions on welfare and cruelty Burns comes down much more firmly against foxhunting than I had originally thought. He says that it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox and states at some length that the fox is not always killed at a single bite or nip and refers to the stress of the chase. Burns is quite clear that shooting with a rifle is by far the least cruel option.
Until recently, I tended to focus my thoughts on foxhunting and hare hunting, but last week the hare coursing championships that were held near Newmarket in my county of Suftolk were shown on television. Although I have never been particularly emotional about this, I found some of the film on hare coursing, and watching an animal being ripped apart by dogs, really quite repulsive. I have tried to listen carefully to the arguments about why, notwithstanding the cruelty, hunting might be necessary, but one by one the arguments have fallen away under scrutiny.
I spent the best part of a day with the hunt in my constituency, the Waveney Harriers. Before I went out with them I was told quite clearly that hunting was essential to manage the countryside and to keep pests under control, but on the day I was told, "Actually, we do not kill very many. We do not care whether we kill one or not. We enjoy the pleasure of riding and watching the hounds and the sense of pursuit." I fully understand that, but that contradicts the argument that hunting is essential for pest control.

Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the Burns report, he will have seen that Burns was particularly


concerned that hares would disappear most rapidly if hunting were stopped. The hunting system, whether with beagles or harriers, provides a regulatory mechanism while minimising the desire of farmers otherwise to deal with hares as pests.

Mr. Blizzard: Yes, but one of the arguments put to me was that hunting is necessary to keep the hare under control.
I was told that many jobs were at stake, but Burns has well and truly settled that argument with the numbers that he has come up with. He is clear that the economic effects are unlikely to be substantial. I would argue that there need be hardly any job losses if drag hunting is pursued.
I have listened to the argument that hunting is essential for countryside management. I do not have a foxhunt in my constituency. A considerable slice of north-east Suffolk has no foxhunt, and no one has ever written or complained to me that the place is overrun with foxes. I have never known that to be a problem. Indeed, most of the countryside of England does not have foxhunts, and people do not complain about a pestilence of foxes.
I do not believe that hunting is an effective means of controlling foxes. Burns is clear that in lowland areas, such as the one I represent, hunting makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population. As I said, I have a hare hunt in my constituency, but Burns is clear that there is little or no need to control the hare—it is at most a minor agricultural pest. The hare hunt covers only a small part of my constituency, and I am not told that there are not enough or too many hares in the rest of the constituency, so I do not follow that argument. However, I noted that Burns said that hunting gives rise to far too many cases of trespass, disruption and disturbance.
One function that the hunt performs which I think is part of countryside management is the removal of fallen stock. I shall deal with that in connection with drag hunting. I do not want to deny people the pleasure of riding in the countryside and of watching and working with hounds. I do not want to stop them enjoying the sense of pursuit. However, I believe that that could be achieved by the development of drag hunting. Burns suggested that there is no incentive to develop drag hunting while we have hunting in its present form.
I want drag hunting to be developed, because I believe that job losses would thereby be avoided, such as those of people who keep the kennels and maintain the horses. Fallen stock could still be collected to be fed to the hounds, because they would be needed even for drag hunting. Drag hunting could also contribute to countryside management.

Sir Richard Body: Drag hunting does not employ people. We can do the work ourselves, and we have only a few hounds. We do not use fallen stock. We feed the hounds with a proprietary brand out of what we call "the bag", because that is cheaper and easier in the long run.

Mr. Blizzard: I have considered the middle way argument, and I was asked tonight on the radio about licensing. All we hear in the Chamber is that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy in this country. I do not want even more red tape to be created by complaints commissions on hunting. If we license hunting there will be a mountain of red tape.
I want a ban on hunting. Furthermore, I want drag hunting to be developed—perhaps that could become the fourth way. As a result of the Bill, a decision will be taken by democratically elected Members of Parliament on a free vote. That is a powerful mandate. Like me, most people declared their position to their electorate before they came here, and will cast their vote on Second Reading and at further stages. If unelected peers in the other place think that they have the right to block that decision taken on a free vote by democratically elected Members of Parliament who declared their position before they were elected, they are wrong.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: As the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out, the Middle Way Group—perhaps uniquely in the debate on foxhunting—has taken the trouble to listen to people on all sides of the argument and to evolve its ideas accordingly. As the hon. Gentleman noticed, we have built into the Bill a position on hare hunting. We did so partly as a result of his comments, so one could say that there is a little bit of the hon. Gentleman in option 2. I hope that that will make it easier for him to support our proposal. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) was anxious about paperwork. I assure him that he will have to fill in the forms only if he wants to go hunting. If he needs those forms, he can see me later.
There has been much talk about prejudice and accusations have been made on both sides of the House. The assumption of prejudice is underlain by two entirely different starting points that depend on whether one is for or against a ban. Naturally enough, people in animal welfare organisations and Deadline 2000 have a strong sense of the animal welfare aspects of the debate. On the other hand, those who are opposed to a ban base their arguments primarily on civil liberties. Profoundly strong values are involved. In some ways, the strength of feeling on those valid concerns is a compliment to British society. The difficulty is, however, that unless one can find a middle way through which the starting point of the opposing side can be respected, great friction and emotion will tend to cloud the issues.
It is the judgment of the Middle Way Group that the Deadline 2000 proposals are fundamentally and understandably based on animal welfare and do not place sufficient emphasis on the civil liberties question.

Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend will know that my constituency has nine hunts, which dispose of 2,000 foxes per annum. They have done so for the past 30 years, during which the area has maintained a fox population at the same level. A separate aspect of cruelty exists in respect of those foxes, as they slaughter £500,000 worth of lambs every year.

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about an aspect of animal welfare that has not been discussed by Deadline 2000. The fox is a cause of cruelty in the countryside. Unsurprisingly, that issue has not been resolved in this short debate and I ask Deadline 2000 to give it serious consideration.
Other contradictions arise from not dealing consistently with the civil liberties question. Why ban hunting with dogs, but not angling? That is a blatant contradiction. The


RSPCA itself says that fish feel pain. Some hon. Members will own cats, which predate mammals. One does not have to keep a cat as a pet, but if one does so, the likelihood is that it will kill mice, birds and so on. What is the position on falconry? I have tried to find an answer to that question, but have been stonewalled by the League against Cruel Sports. Such inconsistencies are directly caused by failure to take a holistic view of the question of animal welfare versus civil liberties.
In fairness and for the sake of balance, I point out that members of the pro-hunting lobby tend to be so anxious about civil liberties that the animal abuses that have been catalogued are sometimes overshadowed by their desire to protect the individual. That is why they concentrate on jobs, which are to some extent a side issue. Labour Members are right to say that jobs are not the core concern in the debate.
The Middle Way Group was established on the basis of those contradictions. We want to find a way of balancing animal welfare considerations with those on human rights. We have tried to do so because extreme legislation is not good legislation. The crucial point is that not one of the three organisations that are involved in the debate is questioning the necessity of killing foxes in some circumstances. The question is not whether we kill foxes, but how, which makes the whole debate tactical. The Burns report was set up to ask that same question: in what circumstances, if any, would it be acceptable to hunt foxes with dogs?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman referred to coming up against a brick wall on falconry. The League Against Cruel Sports has stated that it believes that the bloodsport of falconry should be outlawed immediately.

Mr. Öpik: At least the league is consistent. The hon. Gentleman had a clearer steer than I did. However, that worries me because it suggests that the argument about the thin end of the wedge has some currency.
When the Burns report was published, the Middle Way Group committed itself to abide by it as far as we reasonably could and to form our own proposals. All three organisations supported the commissioning of the report, but perhaps only the Middle Way Group felt obliged to be loyal to it and to the option that we have helped to create.
The Middle Way Group is proposing an independent Hunting Authority with statutory powers to enforce a code of practice that would be legally binding, and a set of inspectors who could drop in unannounced on any licensed hunt to ensure that that code of practice was being applied. Those who chose to flout the process would be liable to criminal proceedings.
We have tried to balance animal welfare and human rights. We are concerned that many of the arguments against our proposals are based on misinformation. Of course, a small proportion of foxes are killed by dogs, but that activity is concentrated in specific areas. Lord Burns

said that that was a method preferred in upland areas such as my constituency of Montgomeryshire in mid-Wales, among others.

Mr. Banks: What would be the annual cost of the Hunting Authority and the inspectors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned?

Mr. Öpik: We have made various estimates. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) can interrupt me if I do not get this right, but we reckon that the cost will be about £1 million a year. For that amount, the authority would be able to do everything that we wanted it to. Crucially, that money would be raised from the hunts themselves. In other words, it would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement the Middle Way Group's proposals. I thank the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) for asking me that question.
I mentioned the small percentage of foxes killed by dogs throughout the United Kingdom, but said that a high percentage was killed in that way in areas such as mine. Other misinformation includes the amazing assumption by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that there is absolutely no pest control element in hunting with dogs. That is blatantly factually incorrect.
Another incorrect statement that the hon. Gentleman made was that the overwhelming majority of people, in every poll, have said that they want a ban on hunting with dogs. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire accurately quoted the statistic that 48 per cent. of people surveyed in an NOP poll last week said that they supported a ban; in other words, the majority were opposed to a ban. In response, the hon. Gentleman simply denied that the poll existed. That is not rational debate. That is not what the public expect to see in this Chamber when we are deciding profoundly important moral issues such as this. Those who are confident of their argument must surely be confident enough to hear the views of others, and be willing to modify their views if something better comes along.
To have an opinion one must listen to the debate and know what people have said. Few of the hon. Members who will vote on the Second Reading of the Bill have stayed in the Chamber for much of the debate. At one point, the number in here went down to 25. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) can shake his head in an unusual but entertaining fashion, but I am not making a party political point. The Middle Way Group wants, more than anything else, to have a rational, wide-ranging debate in which the hon. Members who go through the Lobby—whether they are for or against the Bill—at least do so having heard the debate. That does not happen if hon. Members do not turn up.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: No, I shall not.
I am optimistic that we can make progress, because, in fairness to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), he included an exemption for gun packs when I discussed the case with him a few years ago, and I thank him for that. In the same vein, I am delighted that the Home Secretary has seen the merit of option 2 and has committed himself to supporting it, in an independent capacity, at a later stage.
Every bit of support for the Middle Way Group has been earned. Two and a half years ago we started at zero; according to the opinion poll that I mentioned earlier, we are now at 37 per cent. That support is based on tiny resources, but a strong idea.
The hon. Member for Worcester said that the measure is a wake-up call for humans to have respect for other creatures on the planet. Perhaps the Middle Way Group is saying that this is a wake-up call for humans to have respect for other creatures on the planet including other human beings. We lay the Middle Way Group's proposals before the House and before the country. Animal welfare and human rights must be allowed to live side by side. Tolerance and balance are the touchstones of our proposals for a regulatory authority. The rule of hunting must be allowed to be backed by the rule of law. Whatever hon. Members think, I ask them at least to have the courage and good sense to read what we have said. Then I implore them to vote on the basis of information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Mr. David Taylor: I give broad support to the introduction of the Bill with its three options. However, my support is not unqualified; it is not without reservation. As a Member of Parliament and, before that, as an active campaigner for animal welfare, my first choice or my highest priority for legislative time would not have been this measure. The Burns report confirms a figure that has been widely cited for some years—that hunts are responsible for killing about 20,000 foxes a year.
People with skills in mental arithmetic will be able to multiply that figure by 200; the answer is 4 million. That is the number of sentient beings killed in animal experimentation throughout the country in laboratories to which no one—at least not members of the public—has access. If we multiply that 4 million by 200, we arrive at 800 million. What figure is that? It is the number of broiler chickens bred in this country in inhumane conditions—in windowless sheds, knee-deep in droppings—whose limbs never reach maturity because of their accelerated growth.
In assessing the priorities of those with concerns about animal welfare, it is my view that, if for every fox killed by a person in a red coat, 200 rats and other beings are killed by men and women in white coats, and if for every such laboratory animal killed, 200 hens, which are cruelly bred, are killed for our nutrition, my preferred focus—my priority—would clearly be on farm animal welfare and tighter laboratory experimentation regimes. Nevertheless, we are where we are; and we are there partly because of the priority of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) in autumn 1997. At that time, we witnessed the depth of feeling in our country and the concerns about the practice of hunting.
North-West Leicestershire is part of a county whose name is synonymous with hunting. When people think about hunting, the first hunt that they often identify is the Quorn—perhaps the most famous hunt in the country. Part of the Quorn's territory lies in the northern part of North-West Leicestershire. The southern part of North-West Leicestershire—the rural area—is in the territory of the Atherstone hunt.
As a Back-Bench Member, I have spoken to a substantial number of people who hunt with those two hunts. I have visited the Kirkby Bellars kennels of the Quorn hunt. I have spoken to a large number of people at advice sessions in rural areas and, like every Member, I have received a substantial postbag covering both sides of the debate.
As has been said, it would be wholly inaccurate, and it would traduce the personalities and attitudes of those who hunt, to dismiss them as heartless, cruel and unaware of the impact of their activities. I did not find that to be true of the people to whom I spoke. They were welcoming and open. They discussed the controls that exist on hunting and they impressed me with their sincerity. However, it did not alter my view about hunting. I am of the contrary view.

Mr. Grieve: I appreciate that that will not have altered the hon. Gentleman's view about hunting, but I wonder whether it should alter his view about whether we should criminalise an activity that is regarded as acceptable by people who he felt, having met them, he had cause to respect. I asked the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) that question, but he seemed to find it difficult and unpleasant. I wonder whether the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) would care to answer.

Mr. Taylor: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has brought me to that point. The argument—which Members who largely populate the Conservative Benches have often used to criticise the Bill—that the Bill would criminalise people who are involved in foxhunting suggests two points. First, it suggests that those people have no power of free will, that they are drawn into an activity that they cannot shake off, that they are addicted to it and that, if it becomes illegal, they will be unable to take a conscious decision to desist from that activity. Secondly, it suggests that the Bill would be retrospective—that it would look back at the activities of which many Labour Members complain and would retrospectively make them illegal and therefore criminalise people who are now going about their normal recreational business. Neither suggestion is borne out by reality.
Members of the Countryside Alliance—who are, of course, the British Field Sports Society dressed up in a flowered smock—have gone through the usual gamut of reasons for allowing hunting to continue. They have spoken about fox population controls. As far as we can tell, the fox population is about 250,000 at its lowest and about 650,000 at its peak. Fox mortality annually is about 400,000 and about 20,000 foxes are killed annually, so 5 per cent. of fox deaths are attributable to hunting. That is not population control by any definition, so that argument should be dismissed with swiftness and contempt.
The Countryside Alliance then began to use a second argument, based on economics: that hunting produces a substantial number of jobs in otherwise hard-pressed rural areas. That argument does not stand up to the light of day. During the development of the debate during this Parliament, triggered by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), it has been suggested that tens of thousands of jobs are involved. Then the figure came down to a very few thousand. The Burns report eventually concluded that, in the very short term, there were direct employment implications for 600 to 700 jobs. Probably,


even such a loss of jobs would, in the medium term, turn into a net gain as more people turned to drag hunting, or chose to involve themselves in equestrian activities because they were no longer linked to the unpalatable activity of foxhunting.
I was not in this place throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, but I did not hear Conservative Members protest when men—it was predominantly men—were losing their jobs in rural coalfields in their thousands in those years. It would be a very small pit indeed that employed only 700 men—the figure that the Burns report arrives at. Thus, the economic case also falls.
I have mentioned criminalisation. It is argued that if foxhunting is banned there will be social and cultural damage—as if the whole of rural Britain was focused on point-to-point events and fundraising dances. That is simply not true, but there is not enough time left for me to demolish that argument.
We have three options. Option 1 is self-evidently pointless, because it involves self-regulation, which we are told has been present for decades—and it patently has not worked. Yes, some hunts are well run and the majority of the people who hunt are decent, ordinary individuals who do not have the qualities that some critics, especially those on the Labour Benches, would suggest, but self-regulation has not worked, so what is the point of that approach?
I shall deal with the other two options in 30 seconds. Option 2 has a superficial attractiveness, suggesting that tighter regulation and licensing would remove most of the problems with hunting. That is possible, but there would inevitably be a ratchet effect and the regulatory regime would be tightened to such a degree that, in the end, hunting would become unviable, impractical and effectively illegal—option 3, which is the one that I am likely to support when we have that opportunity in the Division Lobby early in 2001.

Mr. John Bercow: This has been an excellent debate to which, so far, no fewer than 25 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. Sadly, I shall not have the opportunity to respond to them all, but none spoke more cogently than my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who stressed at the outset that there was no compelling case for the Bill on animal welfare grounds, but that it poses a serious threat to individual freedom.
The cudgels were then taken up in a truly brilliant fashion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in a penetrating and witty speech. [Interruption.] Labour Members might not like this, but they will hear it. My right hon. Friend exposed the Bill for what it is—divisive, unnecessary and proof of the sheer cynicism of the new Labour Government. He was ably followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who rightly characterised the Bill as being based on crude populism and as a vulgar and misguided attempt to reignite a bogus class war which we should long have left behind.
Perhaps the most significant point in the debate was the exchange that took place in different speeches between the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the one

hand and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the other, for my right hon. Friend hit the nail on the head in exposing the hon. Gentleman, who was becoming a bit hot-headed and excited, for what he is in his motivation—arbitrary, capricious and ultimately sentimental in choosing the dividing line that he wants, saying that he would not ban fishing or shooting. He happens aesthetically to disapprove of hunting and thinks that is the basis for law, but I disagree.
Powerful speeches were made on both sides of the House. I compliment the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I respect his knowledge, integrity and sincerity. I am sorry to say that I profoundly disagree with all that he said, but many hon. Members made good contributions—25 in total. The reality is that, in arguing the case on grounds of cruelty, the simple fact is that, as Burns acknowledged, all the methods of pest control are problematic; none of them is immune from criticism. The truth is that there is no compelling evidence that cruelty in foxhunting is any greater than in snaring, trapping, gassing, poisoning or shooting. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) might not want to know it, but the reality is that the Burns report, which I quote for his delectation, said:
In the vast majority of cases, the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds.
I presume that that is what the Home Secretary had in mind when he wisely described the Burns report as
a profoundly impressive study, cogent and well argued.—[Official Report, 12 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 639.].
Fishing results in 100 times as much suffering a day as hunting. It can be argued that shooting results in 200 times as much suffering a day as hunting. On the attitude of many Labour Members, I am bound to conclude that the words "hypocrisy" and "double standards" readily spring to mind. The cloak of moral superiority, which the hon. Member for West Ham showed us at the outset, was quickly stripped away.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman now reply to the question that I asked the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? If the Bill is passed and at some point the Tories return to office, will they seek to reverse it even on a free vote?

Mr. Bercow: I shall deal with that point fair and square. The hon. Gentleman wants to create the impression that opponents of the Bill will inevitably be defeated. I accept no such scenario. We will fight this Bill again, again and again at every stage. We intend to defeat it; it will not reach the statute book before the general election. My right hon. and hon. Friends, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), will ensure that we win the election and this sad, miserable Bill will die the death that it deserves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that point abundantly clear.
In common with so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have never hunted, I do not hunt and I have not the slightest desire whatever to hunt. However, for as long as I have breath in my lungs, I will defend the right of other people to hunt If they so choose. The curse of our times is the instant progression of too many people from the statement, "I do not like" to the statement, "It should be banned."
I shall risk embarrassing my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal whom I cannot readily see—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is behind you."] There he is. I remind the House of the excellent speech that he made on 28 November 1997. His words on that occasion are firmly imprinted on my mind. He talked about the importance of tolerance and emphasised that tolerance is not about putting up with things one does not care about greatly. That, he emphasised, would be apathy, acceptance and neutrality. The test of tolerance is putting up with, and allowing to continue, activities of which one personally strongly disapproves. The reaction of Labour Members suggests that that concept is entirely alien to most of them.
The Home Secretary has said something in the past about liberty and democracy. It is only a pity that he does not relate these remarks to the terms of the Bill. On 15 December 1999, he said:
The test of a democracy is not whether you accord rights to people you agree with, it is whether you accord rights to people with whom you profoundly disagree.
The overwhelming majority of Labour Members and a few Opposition Members disagree with hunting, but those who hunt pose no threat to public order, to their fellow citizens or to the national interest. They should not in any way be criminalised by the House of Commons.

Mr. David Taylor: rose—

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has had enough opportunity to make a fool of himself. I do not see why I should give him another chance to compound his personal embarrassment.
The truth—we know it from many sources—is that hunting confers many significant benefits on our rural habitat and makes a real and valuable contribution to the biodiversity of our environment. We know, too, as a matter of fact that
hunt kennels provide a valued service to the farming industry by removing casualty and fallen stock.
They are not my words or even those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon; they are the words of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. How right she was then; how wrong most Labour Members are now.

Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why he opposes not only a ban on hunting but even the regulation of hunting as proposed by the Countryside Alliance? As I understand it, he will also oppose Second Reading. That seems most mysterious.

Mr. Bercow: I oppose Second Reading, but it is a free vote. I believe that that which it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Meddlesome, silly, burdensome, expensive, interfering, nanny-state regulation is beloved of Labour Members. I want nothing to do with it, and I think that goes for most Conservative Members.
Let us be absolutely clear on this matter. Right hon. and hon. Members can push through the measure if they wish—no doubt they will do their worst—but they will not stop free Britons hunting if they want to. I make the point, which should be blindingly obvious even to Labour Members, that if hunting is banned it will hit not the rich

but the poor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley knows, the rich will go to France, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Germany and Austria.

Ms Drown: rose—

Mr. Bercow: There is not enough time to give way. The hon. Lady had an opportunity to speak earlier. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would prefer it if hon. Members did not shout at the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He is in full flow and we must hear him.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
The truth is that as far as most—although I concede not all—Labour Members are concerned, the measure has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with class warfare. We learned that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear it; they do not want me to embarrass them by revealing the full ugliness of their colleagues' remarks, but the hon. Member for Norwich, North said:
I have found it exciting this morning: there has been a whiff of class struggle in the air.—[Official Report, 28 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 1244.]
I emphasise to Labour Members that, in the minds of right-thinking, decent people the length and breadth of the country, that is profoundly unpersuasive as a motive for legislating.
Labour Members say that drag hunting is a substitute for hunting live quarry. That argument was demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) and the deputy chairman of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association, who said that drag hunting
certainly is not and must never be referred to as a substitute or an alternative for live quarry hunting.
Labour Members should note that comment and accept that their priorities are wrong.
Bills on licensing, consumer issues, referendums and vaccines have been ditched. Even the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 has been excluded from the programme. Class sizes are rising, hospital waiting times are increasing and the fight against crime is weaker. It is totally wrong for the Government to prioritise and pursue a ban on hunting. This country is the home of Magna Carta and the birthplace of liberty. The rights of free-born citizens to continue to pursue their occupations should be upheld, as it will be by the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) talked about tolerance of minorities, but what about tolerance of minorities in the Conservative party? Why was the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) blocked from speaking for her party at the Dispatch Box on an issue on which we have a free vote? That is some tolerance—it is more like Tory repression. I never thought that I would describe the right hon. Lady as repressed, but there we have it.
The hon. Member for Buckingham called people who favour a ban hypocrites. Well, no doubt he will talk to his boss later.

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: In a moment.
The debate has been good and sometimes passionate. None of us was in any doubt about how strongly people felt about hunting with dogs, and there can be no question about that now. However, the Burns report has made the debate more rational and less emotional than it would have been before its publication. Lord Burns and his colleagues deserve the thanks of the House for that report. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who said that the report was the bible of this debate and thanked officials at the Home Office for their hard work in ensuring that we had before us a Bill that fairly reflects the different views.
We have heard some impassioned defences of Huntingdon—of hunting. [Laughter.] We even heard an impassioned defence of hunting from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), as well as from the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
On the other side of the argument, we heard strong speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor).
I particularly welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who has too long been silenced in this House. We welcome his well-argued and persuasive contribution to the debate.
I draw attention to the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who rightly said that he and we are here not to speak for interest groups in our constituency but to speak our mind on behalf of all our constituents. He put that subtle but important distinction well during a strong contribution to the debate.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), who was able to give us a very useful insight into issues relating to drag hunting.
We heard strong speeches from members of the Middle Way Group. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, I sometimes feel the temptation to call them the third way group, which I am sure would greatly offend the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made strong contributions to the debate.
All that suggests that a Bill such as this is the best way to give Parliament the opportunity to debate such a controversial and difficult issue. The multi-option procedure that we have decided to use has allowed a Bill with three different approaches to be put before the House. As all hon. Members know, they have the

opportunity to reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of those three approaches in the light of the Burns Report and then to decide, in a free vote, which they favour.
It is also clear that the vexed and contentious issue of hunting could never have been satisfactorily resolved using the route of a private Member's Bill. Time and again, Bills on this subject fell not because they could not command a majority in Parliament but because of a lack of parliamentary time. That is why I believe that the Government are right to have introduced a Government Bill while leaving its content to interest groups and the key decision to Parliament.
Questions have been raised about each of the options. It is for the proponents of the options rather than me to attempt to deal with arguments for or against a particular schedule, but I intend to touch on a few points.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Just to clarify the situation, what would the Government do if the House of Commons voted for a total ban and the House of Lords amended the Bill by going for the middle way? Would the Government press on with the help of the Parliament Act or go for the middle way?

Mr. O'Brien: That is a matter for Parliament to decide. We will consider it if and when the situation arises. That is the time to consider it.
I shall deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who suggested that the subject was, in a sense, too trivial for a Bill. Hunting has been the subject of debate for years. It has been on the front page of our national newspapers for years. To many, the subject is far from trivial. I would be the first to admit that it is not of the same importance as crime, education or health, but the Bill is not in place of legislation on those important subjects. Hon. Members who have studied the Gracious Speech will know that it contains measures dealing with health, education and, from my own Department, crime. Earlier this week, the House gave a Second Reading to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, while the other place has done likewise for a Bill to regulate the private security industry.
Let me deal with another canard that has been wheeled out—namely, that the Bill is the only one in the Government's programme that deals with rural affairs, and that we are neglecting the interests of the countryside. Quite apart from the absurdity of the notion that measures on health, education and crime are of no benefit to the rural population, I remind our detractors that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently published the rural White Paper, which contained a host of proposals to help the countryside. Already, we have invested an additional £170 million over three years from 1998 to help rural transport, including support for rural bus services. We boosted provision of social housing in rural areas by allowing the release of £800 million from council house sales to be reinvested in homes for local people. We have introduced a mandatory 50 per cent. relief for the sole shop and post office in designated communities of fewer than 3,000 people, and we have introduced a presumption against the closure of rural schools.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon took a cynical view of the Bill. He will recall that when his Government introduced the Sunday Trading Act 1994, there were those who believed that it was divisive, unnecessary and even


an attack on Christianity. The issue was a controversial and difficult one, but, in retrospect, we can see that the right hon. Gentleman was right to introduce a multi-choice Bill, just as the current Government are right in respect of this Bill. The Bill appears at the start of the Session because it is ready at the start of the Session: we have had the Burns report, we have prepared the Bill and it is ready to be considered by the House. We promised a free vote in our manifesto and we are delivering on that manifesto promise.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am not aware that there are any Scottish Members currently on the Government Benches, save for the Foreign Secretary, who has just arrived. Is it the Government's intention that their Scottish Members should abstain from voting on a matter that relates only to England and Wales?

Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with that point earlier and I shall not detain the House by repeating his reply, for which the hon. Gentleman should have been present.
The question of police resources has been raised during the debate. My officials have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has said that the police already have to commit resources to hunts, in particular to dealing with anti-hunt saboteurs. There are implications in banning, regulation and self-regulation, but ACPO has indicated that there is likely to be little practical difference in the resources required by each of the options.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned devolution issues. We believe that the 40 Welsh Members of the Westminster Parliament are as capable of representing Wales in this respect as the 60 Assembly Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised matters relating to fishing and shooting. Let me make it clear that, in an article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 20 September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a public guarantee that the Government will not allow a ban on shooting or fishing.
At the start of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out his position and it is right that I should do the same. I voted for the Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), both of which would have had the effect of banning hunting with dogs. I have now studied the Burns report carefully. Having done so, I see absolutely no reason to change my views, so I shall vote in favour of schedule 3 when the time comes.
As the House is by now aware, the three options in the Bill were suggested by the main interest groups in the field. Supporting the Bill's Second Reading is a sensible approach. It should command the support of all the various groups in the House, whether they want a ban, regulation or self-regulation. The Bill will enable a proper debate to take place in the light of the Burns report, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 373, Noes 158.

Division No. 28]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon


Alexander, Douglas
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allan, Richard
Coleman, Iain


Allen, Graham
Colman, Tony


Amess, David
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette



Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corston, Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cotter, Brian


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cousins, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Cox, Tom


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Baker, Norman
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Banks, Tony
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Battle, John
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Day, Stephen


Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dismore, Andrew


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Drew, David


Borrow, David
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brake, Tom
Edwards, Huw


Brand, Dr Peter
Efford, Clive


Breed, Colin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronnie


Buck, Ms Karen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burstow, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flynn, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cann, Jamie
Gale, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gerrard, Neil


Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gidley, Sandra


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)






Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McIsaac, Shona


Hancock, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hanson, David
McNamara, Kevin


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McNulty, Tony


Harris, Dr Evan
MacShane, Denis


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWilliam, John


Hendrick, Mark
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Heppell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Ottaway, Richard


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pollard, Kerry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pond, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pope, Greg


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pound, Stephen


Kingham, Ms Tess
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lammy, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Linton, Martin
Randall, John


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rapson, Syd


Lock, David
Raynsford, Nick


Love, Andrew
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rendel, David


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara





Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Todd, Mark


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shipley, Ms Debra
Walley, Ms Joan


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Ward, Ms Claire


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wareing, Robert N


Singh, Marsha
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
Webb, Steve


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Soley, Clive
Willis, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wills, Michael


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wood, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Woodward, Shaun


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wyatt, Derek


Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES


Ancram, Ht Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bercow, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel


Brady, Graham
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Flight, Howard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burnett, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gibb, Nick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gill, Christopher



Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gray, James


Chope, Christopher
Green, Damian


Clappison, James
Greenway, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Grieve, Dominic






Gummer, Rt Hon John
Norman, Archie


Hague, Rt Hon William
Oaten, Mark


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Hammond, Philip
Öpik, Lembit


Harvey, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hayes, John
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hoey, Kate
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ruffley, David


Hunter, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Soames, Nicholas


Keetch, Paul
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spring, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Steen, Anthony


Kirkwood, Archy
Streeter, Gary


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Leigh, Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lidington, David
Thompson, William


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Livsey, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tyrie, Andrew


Loughton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Luff, Peter
Walter, Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wardle, Charles


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Madel, Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Malins, Humfrey
Wilshire, David


Maples, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


May, Mrs Theresa



Moore, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Moss, Malcolm
Dr. Julian Lewis and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill red a Second time.

Orders of the Day — DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Speaker: I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from previous days.
On the motion "National Lottery"—on the Millennium Commission—the Ayes were 391 and the Noes 16, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "National Lottery"—on the distribution fund—the Ayes were 347 and the Noes 182, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Deregulation", the Ayes were 460 and the Noes 43, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Tax Simplification (Joint Committee)", the Ayes were 520, the Noes 4, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Family Law"—on the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000—the Ayes were 483, the Noes 44, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Family Law"—on the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000—the Ayes were 522, the Noes 5, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Family Law"—on the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000—the Ayes were 522, the Noes 5, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Family Law"—on the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations 2000—the Ayes were 522, the Noes 5, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Family Law"—on the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000—the Ayes were 484, the Noes 44, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993", the Ayes were 348, the Noes 169, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Animals", the Ayes were 516, the Noes 6, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Broadcasting", the Ayes were 523, the Noes 4, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Orders of the Day — Hunting Bill (Programme)

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill—
Committee

1. Clauses 1 to 4 and any New Clauses shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
2. The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
3.—

(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one allotted day.
(2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November shall not apply to the Bill.
5. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have selected amendment (a).

Mr. O'Brien: As the House may know, it was originally proposed that Second Reading should take place on Monday. For reasons unconnected with the Bill, those arrangements changed.
In a way, I am a little disappointed. Had the Bill been discussed on Monday, the honour of proposing the first ever programme motion of this kind would have fallen to me, but the prize went to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), in connection with the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. The occasion turned out to be rather more eventful than had been expected, because there was some dispute about what had been agreed through the usual channels. Let there be no dispute this time: nothing has been agreed through the usual channels.
I am conscious that we are in fairly new territory, and I therefore want to explain what the motion involves. I hope to be brief, as it is fairly straightforward. It provides for clauses 1 to 4, and any new clauses, to be taken on the Floor of the House. That is when the key decision will be made—the decision between the three schedules.

Mr. Hogg: When the matter comes to the Floor of the House, how much time will we have? Will debate be concluded at 10 o'clock or will it go beyond 10 o'clock?

Mr. O'Brien: The day will be our normal parliamentary day, so I imagine that the debate will be curtailed, as usual, at 10 o'clock. No doubt the way in which the debate will be determined will be discussed through the usual channels. It is not for me to prejudge that. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, those discussions will doubtless take place in the usual way.
All hon. Members should be able to participate in the choice, which is why we are taking the schedules on the Floor of the House in a day. We have allocated one day because that will be sufficient, and the Bill will be the first item of Government business on that day. On that

occasion, the House will be asked to make a single decision on which option it favours, so setting aside a day seems appropriate.
It is also worth noting that the decision on which option to adopt in the Sunday Trading Bill, the most recent example of an options Bill, was taken in a single day on the Floor of the House. Once the choice has been made, the detail of the chosen option needs to be scrutinised properly. Again, following the Sunday trading precedent, we believe that that should be done in Standing Committee. The motion requires that process to be completed by 8 February next year, and I shall explain why the Government believe that that is appropriate.
I cannot predict on which day the full debate will take place on the Floor of the House. As I have indicated, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. However, we anticipate that there will be about three weeks between that point and the date by which the Bill must complete its Committee stage. It is likely that the Committee will have to consider only one of the three options in the Bill. It has about three weeks to consider that option, which could mean 13 sittings—a sitting to consider the sittings motion and 12 more. To put that in context, the longest of the three schedules is about 17 pages long. By contrast, the Greater London Authority Bill—to take a recent example—was over 300 pages long. Anyone who believes that 12 sittings are insufficient to consider a maximum of 17 pages should, in that case, consider the length of time needed to consider a Bill of 300 pages. We would probably have to take a whole parliamentary Session.

Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman was careful to use the words "17 pages", as opposed to specifying the number of paragraphs. The option for which the Home Secretary said he would vote contains 64 separate paragraphs. Is the Minister seriously telling the House that six Committee sittings—which is all that there would be in three weeks—are enough to deal with 64 paragraphs of a highly contentious schedule?

Mr. O'Brien: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there would be 12 sittings, since there are two sittings a day. In our view, that will be sufficient, and that is the basis on which we are asking the House to consider the motion.

Mr. David Wilshire: rose—

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I am conscious that a lot of people want to speak, so if hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, I shall press on.
In addition, and in accordance with Sessional Order C, a Programming Sub-Committee will be appointed to consider how the time in Standing Committee can be used most sensibly and efficiently. The motion before us proposes that, in the case of this Bill, we will dispense with a Programming Committee. There is a simple reason for that. As I have already mentioned, the Committee of the whole House will, in effect, be invited to make a single decision. It seems entirely probable that there will be a single debate on the options, followed by a series of Divisions. That being so, there would be no point in appointing a Programming Committee to decide how time on the Floor of the House should be allocated.
The Bill before the House is cormplete. Apart from one amendment on commencement, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in his opening speech on Second Reading, no Government amendments are envisaged. We see no reason why proper consideration of the Bill should not be possible in the time scale envisaged in the motion before the House. This is not a case of trying to rush the Bill through; it is simply a matter of setting a reasonable time scale for a measure that is not by any stretch of the imagination a long Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister referred to the Greater London Authority Bill, and the fact that the Business Sub-Committee on that Bill, which I happened to chair, was able to agree, across the parties, the way in which the Bill should be handled in Standing Committee. I do not think that this Bill will get cross-party support. Is it not unfair to cite a Bill that had cross-party support in the Business Sub-Committee, and agreement as to how it should be handled in Standing Committee, in connection with this Bill, on which I do not think that agreement will be forthcoming?

Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the House considers many controversial Bills. Discussions—which are perfectly amicable—are held in the usual way, and now in this new way. People disagree over the content of a Bill, but they are nevertheless prepared to ensure that the timing of discussion of that Bill gives everyone a fair chance to put their point of view. Programme motions are all about ensuring that Opposition Members as well as Labour Members have an opportunity to put their points of view. Programme motions are about providing certainty and letting the whole House know when particular business is to be debated, and when a particular stage of a Bill is to be completed. It also gives the Opposition the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to have some input into the process.

Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, and I hear what he says about the time scale. He said that there would probably be three weeks between the date of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House and the completion of the Committee stage upstairs. Why does he not specify in the motion that the Committee stage upstairs will be completed three weeks after the debate on the Floor of the House, rather than by a particular date? If the business managers find that the debate on the Floor of the House takes place only one day before the specified date, the three weeks will be up the chute. Will he make that change, so that the motion says that the debate should be three weeks later, rather than take place on a particular date?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which no doubt will have been heard by the usual channels. However, those who represent the interests of his parties in the discussions will no doubt discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others how they wish this matter to be handled. If the Opposition are sensible about the way in which they want the measure debated, there is no reason why it should not be debated in a sensible way that gives everyone the opportunity to have their say.
The motion before us will provide—

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from that intervention—I had not

spotted it myself—that the business motion is incorrectly drafted. It is not for the Minister to say that this is a matter for the usual channels, because the business is before the House and we are being invited to vote on the motion, which, as I understand it, is not amendable. The motion will be passed—but the Minister has accepted that there is a potential flaw in it. If the business managers decide not to have Report stage on the day suggested, the three weeks that the Minister has guaranteed will not be available. Therefore, unfortunately, and not for the first time, the business motion is not correctly drafted, if the Minister—whom I do not blame—has correctly described the Government's wishes.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the motion is not amendable, as I have selected an amendment.

Mr. King: Not on this point.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps not, but matters dealt with through the usual channels are not a matter for me. They are matters for the usual channels.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. King: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell anyone to sit down. I tell them to sit down.

Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling. In the light of your correction about the motion being amendable, will you accept a manuscript amendment to implement the Minister's intention, which he has now stated to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The amendment under consideration has to be disposed of first. As for accepting a manuscript amendment, we shall have to see how things go.

Mr. O'Brien: The motion before the House—

Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No. We are happy that the motion before the House will deal with the issues in the proper way. I can assure the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that we are already having discussions with those on the Opposition Front Bench to determine an appropriate date—

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way to him.
The way in which this matter can be debated should be discussed through the usual channels. Members on the Opposition Front Bench know perfectly well how that is done, and if they want to enable Conservative Members to have their say, they will no doubt co-operate in the usual way. The motion provides ample opportunity for the Bill to be properly considered in Committee, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Lidington: I was genuinely shocked when the Minister said that the one thing that he regretted about the change of business this week was that it deprived him of what he termed the honour of moving the first programme motion under the new arrangements that the Government rammed through at the close of the previous Session. It was a cause for shame and disgrace rather than honour. His comments reminded me of the saying:
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.
In this programme motion and in others that the Government have brought before the House and that they plan for future legislation, they are stealing the rights of right hon. and hon. Members to represent the interests of their constituents and other outside bodies through detailed scrutiny of and comment on the contents of legislation.
The programme motion has two themes, and I shall deal briefly with each of them. First, there is the committal to a Committee of the whole House on clauses 1 to 4 and new clauses. In his remarks, the Minister skipped lightly over the fact that the committal arrangements in the motion do not merely apply to the selection by the House of one of the three options embodied in the schedules, but cover any new clauses that hon. Members may table between this evening and the Bill's emergence before a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Greenway: This is a shameful moment for Parliament. One day is inadequate to consider not only those clauses and any new clauses, but amendments to the clauses. My hon. Friend and the Minister know that, were the Bill to go into Committee upstairs, it would take several sittings to deal with the first three clauses because of the amendments that would be moved by hon. Members on both sides of the argument.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It takes the biscuit for the Government to say that there will be ample time in just one parliamentary day to consider the three options embodied in the schedules and any amendments and new clauses that may be tabled.
The experience of the House on Second Reading today was that you, Mr. Speaker, had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers because of the number who wanted to take part in the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of this point, and I understand that, but perhaps he would tell us how many days he and his Front-Bench colleagues asked that the Committee on the Floor of the House should sit. Was it one day, two days, three days or no days?

Mr. Lidington: I have not been party to any discussions about this matter. [Interruption.] I have not agreed provisionally or conclusively to any programme. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if the House settled down; it must do that.

Mr. Lidington: I have not agreed to the programme motion. All hon. Members will have a free vote on the Bill—a pre-eminent,example of the sort of measure to which it is absurd to apply a programme motion. It is not my responsibility—or that of any other Conservative Front Bencher—to speak for all my hon. Friends, who have independent views, which they will wish to express in the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Soames: Points were made in great depth and detail on Second Reading. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the fundamental wickedness of the Bill—[Interruption]—or at least its grave consequences for the personal liberties of many of our citizens, the measure clearly deserves two days' consideration in a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is being generous in the offer that he has made in the amendment. I hope that he will get the opportunity to speak about it later.
The time allocated for debate today was inadequate because it did not provide an opportunity for every hon. Member who wanted to contribute to do so. Furthermore, the Government chore to deprive the House of nearly an hour of debating time by including a ministerial statement in today's proceedings. [Interruption.] If the programme motion is accepted, we have no guarantee that the Government will not choose to introduce—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.

Mr. Andrew Miller: He is not looking at me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is not going to give way.

Mr. Lidington: I want my hon. Friends and others who wish to contribute to the debate to have the opportunity to do that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) should make representations to his business managers if he believes that the time allowed for debate on the Bill or the motions that relate to it is inadequate. The timetable is in the Government's hands, not those of the Opposition.

Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) alleges that the Bill should not be a matter for the usual channels. I understand that a discussion took place between Government and Opposition Whips. Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman knows that and is misleading the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aylesbury would not mislead the House. I hope that there is no suggestion of that; I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would make such a suggestion.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aylesbury would not intentionally mislead the House. However, discussions have taken place between Government and Opposition Whips. The hon. Gentleman need only consult to confirm that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that we have got that point out of the way, I stress that we are considering a narrow programme motion. The hon. Member for Aylesbury made a point of debate, and it is up to other hon. Members to rebut his case if they wish. It is not a matter for the Chair. Let us leave it at that.
I hope that hon. Members will be quiet in the Chamber and listen to the case that is being made. The way in which they vote is then up to them. I stress that we are considering a narrow issue. I call Mr. Lidington.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful—

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lidington: I shall give way shortly.
If the House accepts the motion, I hope that the Government will reflect on the matter. If we are to be allowed only one day's debate in a Committee of the whole House, I hope that they will undertake to arrange no ministerial statements for that day. I hope that they will also undertake to allow debate to continue until any hour with the votes at the end, rather than resorting to a cut-off at 10 pm or to the deferred voting procedure.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend think that the motion is an honest attempt to balance the desire of the majority to get their Bill with the desire of the minority to have proper scrutiny, or is it dictated by a desire to deliver the Bill to the House of Lords in time for the calling of a general election in March? In other words, is this a proper debate about centuries of tradition or just playing politics with country people?

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point at issue. The political motive for the motion is to achieve retrospectively the position claimed by the Prime Minister: that the House of Lords had obstructed the Bill on hunting. That is why the Government want to ram the Bill through the House of Commons with inadequate debate and get it to the other place as quickly as possible.
The second limb of the motion is the guillotine to be imposed on future Committee proceedings. That is objectionable as a matter of principle. Only once a Standing Committee starts to examine a Bill in detail can one begin to see where problems arise, where more consultation is required and where there have been errors of drafting by Government draftsmen—and we have had plenty of those over the past three years.
In the immediate aftermath of Second Reading, it is impossible to predict accurately where the problems and points of interest lie in a Bill. It is sensible to leave it for the Committee and the respective business managers to agree—informally, if appropriate—on arrangements for the handling and management of business, rather than laying down a rigid motion.
Outside organisations always wish to make representations to Committee members. The organisations affected by the Bill do not include large corporations, which can employ professional lobbyists and others to investigate the details of the Bill and to draft possible amendments on their behalf. Many of those affected by the Bill live in scattered rural communities and are not particularly familiar with the workings of Westminster and the way in which legislation is made. Those of us

who have served on Standing Committees know that even large commercial organisations often propose amendments too late in the proceedings. I fear that the risk of that will be far greater now.
The motion is a disgrace to Parliament and makes a mockery of scrutiny; the House should reject it.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment (a), leave out "one allotted day" and insert "two allotted days."
If the amendment is accepted by the Government, it will make only slightly more palatable a ruthless guillotine motion that is rotten in principle and malicious in its detail. The House is considering a guillotine motion that displays the typical arrogance of this most dictatorial of all Governments; a Government who have decided on Second Reading what the timetable will be in Committee for an option that has not yet been voted on.
The House has before it three options: schedule 1 has seven paragraphs; schedule 2—the option for which the Home Secretary said he would vote—has 64 paragraphs; and schedule 3—the option for a total ban and the attempt to criminalise hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people—has 28 paragraphs. However, the Government do not know officially which way the House will vote. It could vote for the Home Secretary's option and then we would have only a short time in Committee to deal with 64 provisions.

Mr. Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whichever option is selected, there will be a problem? Supporters of the other two options will want to make significant amendments. That is where the time will go; there is concern that the present time allocation may not be enough.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—as every Member knows: one day's debate on the Floor of the House to deal with three major issues of principle is a ridiculously short period for such an important Bill.

Mr. Hogg: There is also the question of compensation. Many hon. Members might feel that compensation was an essential element. Such a scheme must be worked out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would do me a favour if he would turn and address the Chair so that I can hear what he says.

Mr. Hogg: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I wanted to make sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) could hear me.
My right hon. Friend will appreciate that many of us feel that if this bad Bill goes ahead, a compensation scheme should be an essential part of it. It will inevitably take a great deal of time to work out a proper scheme and we shall not have time to do so.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. If the House accepts the option of a complete ban, that will raise questions of criminal law and the fact that innocent people who are currently pursuing


a perfectly lawful activity—doing no harm to anyone—will be turned into criminals; they could face prison sentences. Upstairs, the Committee will want to give considerable time to that matter.
The Government have decided in advance. They do not care which option is accepted; they have decided that the Bill will leave Committee by 8 February—no matter when it goes into Committee. We heard an interesting revelation this evening; I hope that we shall have the chance to pursue it by way of a manuscript amendment immediately after the vote on the motion. The Under-Secretary admitted that he hopes that the measure will have three weeks in Committee; only six days—a miserable 12 sittings. That is what the Minister hopes will happen, so that he can get his Bill out by 8 February.
However, we know that the Bill does not have a slot for consideration during the first week after the Christmas break. We know the business for that week; it does not include the Bill. It is certainly not included in the provisional business for Monday 15 January. If the Bill is slotted in for consideration on the Floor of the House for the week commencing 15 January, there is a possibility that we might complete a miserable 12 sittings in Standing Committee by 8 February, but we have received no guarantee from the Government that the Bill will be given consideration during that week. It is quite possible that the timetable will slip. If the Bill is not considered until 22 January and still has to complete its Committee stage by 8 February, we will be down to four days in Committee.
We are seeing double dealing and sleight of hand from the Government tonight. Even if the Bill was considered on the Floor of the House during the second week of January, and even if my modest amendment for two days of such consideration was accepted, there would still be inadequate time in Committee to deal with all the points that would be raised. Why are the Government so keen to get the Bill out of Committee by 8 February?

Mr. Leigh: We know why.

Mr. Maclean: Well, it is not merely because the Government want to bash the measure through to the Lords. We know that they are terrified of a certain date in March; they are so scared of Sunday 18 March that they are determined to make sure that there will be no consideration of the Bill on Report in this place. On Sunday 18 March, this country will see the biggest civil rights march in its history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It will far surpass the 320,000 people who marched last time. The Government are running scared of that; it is why they want to ensure that Report stage is concluded well before that march.
If my other amendment, to have the Bill taken out of Committee by 15 March, had been accepted—I shall not go down that route, because it is not under discussion—and if the Bill came out of Committee on 15 March or slightly before, Report would not be until after Sunday 18 March. If that were to happen, we would see quite a few frit faces on the Labour Benches. Those Labour MPs who like to pretend that they understand the countryside, and that their majority depends on country people, would

then troop into the Lobby to vote down this iniquitous and punitive Bill, which would criminalise tens of thousands of innocent people.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend heard the Minister's refusal to tell us how much time would be given in the other place, to enable us to judge the whole timetable for the legislation. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the intention is to try to ram it through the other place as well? What can Ministers do when the other place comes up with a different answer from that given by this place which is quite possible? Does that mean that we could have some interesting parliamentary procedures at the exact time when the great march arrives in London?

Mr. Maclean: Despite the fact that the other place has been stuffed full of what are called Tony's cronies, and despite the fact that the Government have packed it full of those who have paid a miserable £5,000 for their peerage, it is still a fact that on an issue such as this, which involves fundamental human freedom, the Government know that they cannot guarantee that Tony's cronies will deliver the Bill for them. As there are sufficient Back Benchers, sufficient Labour and Liberal Members and sufficient Conservative Members in the other place who I believe in that fundamental human freedom, the Government know that the Bill could not get through the other place with a total ban option—so they must have another electoral ploy in mind.
Many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate in the 11 minutes that remain, so I shall conclude. It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that the programme that he is putting before the House tonight is similar to that on the Sunday Trading Bill. There is no such comparison. In that case, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that something had to be done. All parties and the usual channels said, "We need to reform Sunday trading law, and we only disagree about some technicalities." This Bill, by contrast, does not have the unanimous consent of the House that something needs to be done and that we only need to argue about the technicalities so a day on the Floor and couple of days upstairs in Committee would suffice. The Bill is strongly opposed by 160 Opposition Members. In those circumstances, the Government can make no comparison to the Sunday Trading Bill.
I raise another issue in conclusion. I believe that, in the vote tonight, at least six Scottish Members from the Labour party voted to ban hunting in England and Wales. I would merely tell them that they do not know what they are doing. That will stoke up such massive unrest in rural areas of England and Wales that it will send another 100,000 people to add to the strength of the march on 18 March.
I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to accept amendment (a), which would increase from one day to two the time given on the Floor of the House, and to vote for it should it be voted on. However, the whole programme motion is wrong and rotten in principle, and we should vote that down in the Division afterwards.

Mr. Soames: I shall be very brief, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will be able to make his views known to the House.
This afternoon, some 5,500 people from every corner of the land came to London, many at great personal expense, to make known outside this place, in a good-humoured manner, their extreme concern at the steps being taken by the Government in the Bill.
The great philosopher Burke rightly remarked that when a separation is made between liberty and justice, great harm is done to both. What the Government propose in this wicked Bill is thoroughly divisive and extremely dangerous for the harmony of the countryside and the town. It is quite clear that it deserves more than one day in Committee on the Floor of the House.
This complex Bill deserves a far more detailed examination on the Floor of the House than will be allowed. Otherwise, I fear that those on the march, which was eloquently mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), will feel that justice has not been done in the House. Those 400,000 or even 500,000 people will come to London to defend their lives and liberties and their justice. If the high court of Parliament does not do its duty properly, and if people do not feel that their concerns have been rightly dealt with here, we can expect trouble outside. One day cannot be enough to deal with the complexity of the animal welfare issues.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should note that the amendment was tabled by a Back Bencher and that no amendment was tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, we were fairly relaxed about the number of days, but they did not ask for two days on the Floor of the House. If they had, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) might have been in a stronger position. By the way, the Opposition have talked out the time for the manuscript amendment.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but we are all Back Benchers in that there will be a free vote. This has been a formidable day's debate, and it has raised the most profound issues. On the detailed examination of those issues, which radically affect the natural justice and the lives and liberties of tens of thousands of people in this country, it would be wrong if we did not demand that the Government should allow two days debate on the Floor of the House. What can it possibly cost the Government to give us two days on the Floor of the House on such a vital matter? Indeed, they would be given credit for taking the views of Parliament seriously for once and allowing such an important matter to be examined in more detail.
I beg the Minister to realise that, despite the very glib responses of people who have no connection with, no understanding of and no feeling for the countryside and what goes on there, the Government must understand the real anger that the proposals have aroused in the countryside. By allowing proper time for debate in the nation's political forum on the Floor of the House, they would at least give a chance for all the views to be properly aired and examined. It would be a terrible miscalculation and an injustice to the interests of ordinary people if the Government were not to grant us that.

Mr. Miller: I shall touch on what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said in a moment, but I want to put my position in perspective. I have been a countryside

resident for many years. I am delighted that my late father-in-law banned a hunt from his farm in Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is my Member of Parliament, as well as being an extremely good Whip. He will confirm that my house is right out in the sticks in his constituency.

Mr. Mike Hall: Very nice it is, too.

Mr. Miller: Offers later.
The simple fact is that, just last Wednesday, the hunt disrupted my family life.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I asked Mr. Speaker about the possibility of his accepting a manuscript amendment. What the Minister has promised the House is not encapsulated in the motion on which we are being asked to vote. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, advise the House on how we deal with that situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The manuscript amendment that was submitted to Mr. Speaker has been considered by him but not accepted. We are therefore confined by the terms of the amendment before us and the motion. They are the matters before the House and they are what I have to implement.

Mr. Miller: As I said, the hunt seriously disrupted my household last Wednesday.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an interesting point about a free vote, and it is one that the House will need to consider in future. I was aware—

Sir Robert Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is running out and we are unlikely to hear a winding-up speech from the Minister, so would it be in order for him to say that, in the light of this debate, he is at least willing to accept amendment (a), which would reduce the damage that the programme motion will do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has the Floor and he must be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Miller: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex raised an interesting point. However, the simple fact is that he should not raise the issue as a complaint in the House, but raise it formally with his own Whips who were party to the discussions and did not consult him. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the motion, his problem is with his own Whips. They were party to the discussions and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, they did not seek additional time. They did not seek an additional day or time to consult Members such as the hon. Gentleman. He has a point, but his argument is not with the House; it is with the Opposition Whips.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is a master tactician at trying to keep the House's proceedings going for his own devices. Equally,


he must know that my point is accurate. From the Bills that he was involved in as a Minister in the previous Administration and since—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 319.

Division No. 29]
[11.3 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hancock, Mike


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harris, Dr Evan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Norman
Hayes, John


Baldry, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Body, Sir Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Breed, Colin
Key, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lansley, Andrew


Burnett, John
Leigh, Edward


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Burstow, Paul
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cotter, Brian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Major, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fearn, Ronnie
Öpik, Lembit


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gidley, Sandra
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Golding, Mrs Llin
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Sanders, Adrian


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Sheerman, Barry


Grieve, Dominic
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael





Spring, Richard
Webb, Steve


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Swayne, Desmond
Wilkinson, John



Willis, Phil


Syms, Robert
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Tyrie, Andrew
and


Wardle, Charles
Dr. Julian Lewis.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Alexander, Douglas
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann



Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbett, Robin


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin, John
Cousins, Jim


Bailey, Adrian
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony
Cranston, Ross


Barnes, Harry
Crausby, David


Battle, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Dawson, Hilton


Best, Harold
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dismore, Andrew


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobbin, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Efford, Clive


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caton, Martin
Foulkes, George


Cawsey, Ian
Galloway, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands))
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Goggins, Paul


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwkich S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWatler, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Hendrick, Mark
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd


Lammy, David
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salter, Martin


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)





Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate Dr Howard
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 122.

Division No. 30]
[11.19 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Burgon, Colin


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Butler, Mrs Christine



Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Cann, Jamie


Austin, John
Caplin, Ivor


Bailey, Adrian
Casale, Roger


Banks, Tony
Caton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Cawsey, Ian


Battle, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Borrow, David
Cooper, Yvette


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Cousins, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cox, Tom






Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cummings, John
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally


Denham, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Drew, David
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lammy, David


Efford, Clive
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWalter, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moffatt, Laura


Hope, Phil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)





Olner, Bill
Southworth, Ms Helen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Spellar, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pearson, Ian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Perham, Ms Linda
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pond, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Truswell, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooker Rt Hon Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Vaz Keith


Rooney, Terry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruane, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Joan
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Salter, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sheerman, Barry
Wills, Michael


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Singh, Marsha
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Don Touhig.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony



Beggs, Roy
Collins, Tim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Curry, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Breed, Colin
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flight, Howard


Burnett, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Fowier, Rt Hon Sir Norman






Garnier, Edward
Maclean, Rt Hon David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Major, Rt Hon John


Gidley, Sandra
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gray, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Green, Damian
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Greenway, John
Öpik, Lembit


Grieve, Dominic
Paice, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hammond, Philip
Randall, John


Hancock, Mike
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, Dr Evan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hayes, John
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Howard,Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Syms, Robert



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Wardle, Charles


Letwin, Oliver
Webb, Steve


Lidington, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Livsey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Willis, Phil


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wilshire, David


Loughton, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Dr. Julian Lewis and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill:—
Committee

1. Clauses 1 to 4 and any New Clauses shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
2. The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
3.—

(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one allotted day.
(2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.

4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November shall not apply to the Bill.
5. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.

HUNTING BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hunting Bill, it is expedient to authorize—


(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) grants and loans made by the Secretary of State to the Hunting Authority or to ISAH Limited,
(b) any other expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment, and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 92.

Division No. 31]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald(Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)



Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coleman, Iain


Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bailey, Adrian
Cooper, Yvette


Baker, Norman
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cox, Tom


Beard, Nigel
Cranston, Ross


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Crausby, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blackman, Liz
Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Blizzard, Bob
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Doran, Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Burstow, Paul
Efford, Clive


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Caton, Martin
Flynn, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Barbara


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chaytor, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)






Galloway, George
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)


Gidley, Sandra



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hain, Peter
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWilliam, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hancock, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hendrick, Mark
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen


Keeble, Ms Sally
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lammy, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Levitt, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)





Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Sanders, Adrian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Savidge, Malcolm
Truswell, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Webb, Steve


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Southworth, Ms Helen
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stevenson, George
Willis, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Don Touhig.




NOES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baldry, Tony
Hammond, Philip


Beggs, Roy
Hawkins, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Blunt, Crispin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lansley, Andrew


Burnett, John
Leigh, Edward


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Collins, Tim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Curry, Rt Hon David
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Luff, Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Flight, Howard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Major, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Öpik, Lembit


Greenway, John
Paice, James


Grieve, Dominic
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael






Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterson, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Dr. Julian Lewis and


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINISTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word `European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. Jamie son.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee) be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights

(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.


As an Amendment to Margaret Beckett's Motion (Human Rights (Joint Committee)):
Mr. Paul Tyler
Line 47, at end add—
'(8) It shall be an Instruction to the Committee that it shall elect its chairman from among those members of the Committee who are members of opposition parties.'—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Shopworkers

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I humbly beg to present this petition to the House. It was collected from the shopworkers of the United Kingdom demanding that more than 2 million of them have the right to enjoy Christmas day as a family day, and signed by 20,000 members of the shopworkers union the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, requesting that the House agree to legislation to protect such workers from having to work on Christmas day.
To lie upon the Table.

Hunting with dogs

Ms Candy Atherton: I humbly present this petition from 4,000 of my constituents in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency in west Cornwall. The petition calls for a ban on the hunting of wild mammals with dogs.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of people of the Falmouth and Camborne constituency declares that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs is an example of barbaric cruelty to animals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to ban this practice immediately.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Roy Cotton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I hope that I shall not detain my hon. Friend the Minister for too long as I understand that he has a very busy day tomorrow.
I wish to raise the circumstances of my former constituent Mr. Roy Cotton who is currently detained at Ashworth special hospital under sections 37 to 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
I begin by clearing up the issue of whether I have the required consent of Mr. Cotton to release his details this evening as I understand that, perhaps rightly, Ashworth was somewhat reluctant to disclose information without that consent. First, consent has never been an issue in the correspondence that I have exchanged with Ashworth special hospital. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I have arranged for Mr. Cotton's express consent to be obtained and this afternoon he gave his express consent to his information being released as part of this evening's debate. Thirdly, I find the hospital's concern for Mr. Cotton's privacy somewhat touching, bearing in mind the way in which he has been treated over the past couple of years. I shall return to that later in my speech.
Having said that, I appreciate that confidentiality remains an issue and I understand that my hon. Friend will be constrained in his response. However, I hope that he will be able to address some of my concerns. I shall be asking him to look again at Mr. Cotton's rights in relation to his privileges in Ashworth special hospital and, perhaps more important, to look closely at whether Mr. Cotton should remain at Ashworth and whether he is receiving appropriate treatment there. When I talk about Mr. Cotton's rights. I refer to whether he has suffered some form of harassment or victimisation.
Sadly, Mr. Cotton has a history of offending for various crimes. He was imprisoned in 1970, in 1977 and in 1979. In 1980, he was made subject to a restraining order and detained in Ashworth following a charge of attempted rape. In 1986, after successful treatment, Mr. Cotton was conditionally discharged. He remained in Liverpool, but unfortunately in 1987 he was subject to a further restraining order, which is the basis of his current detention. Apart from the conditional discharge period of approximately one year, Mr. Cotton has been in Ashworth for 20 years.
The issues I wish to raise fall into two categories. The first is the lack of treatment, as he describes it, to rehabilitate him and to try to bring him back into society. He should be given appropriate therapy and courses to allow his transfer to a medium-secure unit. Secondly, there is the restriction of his rights that I have already touched on, which Mr. Cotton and his solicitor feel borders on harassment.
As Mr. Cotton has been in Ashworth for 20 years, there is a danger that he is likely to become institutionalised. He has undergone courses and therapy to assist him, notably on anger management and alcohol abuse. In March this year, he appeared before a mental health


review tribunal. It found that Mr. Cotton still suffered from a psychopathic disorder that required his detention, but it concluded:
We are of the opinion, given the length of Roy Cotton's stay at Ashworth, his eligibility for escorted visits and his possession of a community card, that serious consideration should now be given to a move to conditions of long-term medium security and to the question of whether the necessary therapy and treatment for Roy Cotton could now be provided in such conditions, whether or not a RSU might be his ultimate destination.
That conclusion mentions "the necessary therapy" and
a move to conditions of long-term medium security.
Unfortunately, little has happened between that hearing in March and his most recent hearing on 14 December.
Mr. Cotton has had three different doctors in the past three months. His regular doctor retired and was replaced by another doctor, who was in charge of him for two months. He is now under the care of another doctor. He feels that that is symptomatic of how he is regarded at Ashworth and the lack of suitable care available to him. He thinks that he is regarded as part of the furniture and will not be treated.
There is a suggestion that Mr. Cotton is disliked and perhaps victimised by some of the staff, and that that dislike extends to his care team and social workers, who have consistently opposed his move, despite the recommendations of the tribunal and some of the psychiatrists, doctors and social workers who have provided reports in support of Mr. Cotton when he has appeared before the various tribunals.
I understand that Dr. Coorey, who was one of the doctors who treated Mr. Cotton and was in charge of his care for only two months, commented to him that the issue was not whether he should be moved to a medium-secure unit, or whether he should receive treatment or therapy, but that he should be given a better quality of life. That suggested that Mr. Cotton would have a longer stay in Ashworth, that he was unlikely to be moved and that things would remain the same. Even if it was intended to give him a better quality of life, what has happened to him over the past few months has significantly diminished the quality of his life.
I want to ask my hon. Friend whether the issue is one of finance. Cannot the hospital afford to provide the necessary treatment for Mr. Cotton? Are resources constrained? As a result, is he allowed to remain at Ashworth without any proper programme of therapy for his rehabilitation?
Most of the recent reports on Mr. Cotton stated that he should be considered for a move. The tribunal made the point that he has a community card and is able to make escorted visits when they are availalb1e; some have been denied him. Yet his social workers at Ashworth repeatedly maintain that he should not be moved. His social worker from the Barnsley area, who provides reports to the mental health review tribunal, maintained on the past few occasions that Mr. Cotton would perhaps benefit from a move, if it could be secured. I understand the point that the chairman of Ashworth made to me about a lack of appropriate accommodation because medium-secure units are usually for short-term rather than long-term care, which Mr. Cotton would perhaps continue to require. However, medical advisers consistently refer to the fact that he might improve more quickly with a change of institution.
I am worried that one of the social workers who is in charge of Mr. Cotton's care generates some ill-feeling in him and his visitors. Some personality conflicts may be developing between Mr. Cotton and the people who care for him. They have perhaps led to some of the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen in the past few months. If that is the case, perhaps my hon. Friend could tell me whether the care team or the medical team in charge of Mr. Cotton could be changed to try to alleviate those problems.
I want to consider Mr. Cotton's rights. After the Fallon inquiry, security at Ashworth has been tightened. I fully support that. We all remember the horrendous reports of incidents at Ashworth that led to the inquiry and its results. That increased security must apply to Mr. Cotton as it applies to all other patients at Ashworth, but it sometimes applies to him to the extent of becoming almost farcical. There is a fear, which I consider significant, that Mr. Cotton is being prevented from complaining to me as his Member of Parliament and to his solicitors because staff at Ashworth resent the fact that he complains freely to his solicitors and to me.
I was first contacted about the matter in November 1999 after Mr. Cotton had been denied a leave of absence. In 1998, his case conference decided that he should have four leaves of absence a year. For various reasons, he got no leaves of absence in 1999: they were cancelled at short notice, or transport or staff were unavailable to cope with the visits. I intervened on Mr. Cotton's behalf and, with the help of my hon. Friend and the management at Ashworth, the cancelled leave was reinstated. It appeared that the programme of leaves of absence would continue. However, Mr. Cotton has now been told that he is entitled to only two such leaves. Even they are in question because his mother visits him regularly, so Ashworth claims that there is no need for him to make visits.
Surely such visits are part of the therapy that I mentioned earlier. Mr. Cotton was able to go to South Yorkshire, usually to a shopping mall called Meadowhall, where he spent the day with his mother. That gave him a change of scenery, got him out of Ashworth and contributed to his rehabilitation. When I pressed the matter, Ashworth claimed that the visits cost £1,200. I felt that I had to question that figure because it seemed excessive for trips of such a short distance and involving so few staff.
In March, I was told that Mr. Cotton was to be prevented from receiving letters from a penfriend in Germany. That is another example of rights being taken away from him. Mr. Cotton's social worker—the same social worker is involved all the way through, unfortunately—complained that Mr. Cotton was making too many phone calls from Ashworth. At the time, Mr. Cotton alleged that his calls were being recorded or monitored. I took this up with the chairman of Ashworth, who wrote:
I understand that Mr. Cotton's telephone calls were not being recorded, although he had heard a clicking noise which he understood to be a recording. Staff do ensure that all patients use their own pin number for using the telephone and the number called and length of call are recorded.
That letter was dated 30 November; the same date as when the new guide to patients was issued from Ashworth. The guide states that all calls are recorded and/or monitored, so Mr. Cotton might have had a point there.
I asked about Mr. Cotton's mail being intercepted, lost or sent back to the senders. I was told that this had been looked into. The chairman said:
I understand that a limited number of staff are authorised to handle mail, but that on Lawrence Ward—
Mr. Cotton's ward—
that has been increased to minimise any delay. I have asked that the issues of deprivation and tampering with mail should be looked into closely.
Even before the new guidelines, Mr. Cotton was able to receive mail only from seven nominated people; all of that mail was opened and intercepted. On occasions, it was lost, delivered to him late or sent back to the sender. Letters from his solicitor have been intercepted in a similar manner. I understand that those should have been treated as privileged communications.
In the latest guide from Ashworth, mail for patients is not even mentioned. That problem might solve itself because, on 1 October this year, Mr. Cotton's stationery and stamps were confiscated; it was alleged that he should not have been in possession of them. I can only assume that, once again, because he has complained to his solicitors and to me about his treatment at Ashworth, the staff have decided to make it more difficult for him to make those complaints. That is of great concern to me. Having said that, the chairman of Ashworth has told me that, under paragraph 134 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Mr. Cotton has the absolute right to contact his Member of Parliament.
Other petty actions have been taken against Mr. Cotton. An illuminated magnifying glass which has been in his possession for seven years has now been confiscated. His Christmas presents—which his mother delivered a week ago and which amounted to three boxes of chocolates, toiletries and another box of sweets—were confiscated because the chocolates were regarded as food items. Under the latest guidelines, food and tobacco items are no longer allowed in Ashworth. It seems petty to confiscate boxes of chocolates.
I have had a letter from Ashworth today, posted on 14 December, which has suggested that food items will be available for sale on the premises of Ashworth, alleviating the problem for visitors who wish to buy food items such as confectionery for patients. That problem might have been resolved.
Mr. Cotton is allowed 10 books, and in his room he had that number and a photograph album. Ashworth decided that the photograph album was a book and that has now been confiscated. Again, I feel that that is rather petty. More seriously, a female visitor who Mr. Cotton has known for thirty years—a woman who was the partner of his cousin until he died and who has been visiting Mr. Cotton for 18 years—has been told that she will not be allowed to visit any longer. She has been interviewed by the staff of Ashworth and a staff member made the point that she could no longer visit on the grounds that Mr. Cotton was "grooming her". The quote comes directly from the Fallon inquiry; it is an emotive quote, which was subsequently withdrawn. That action was inappropriate and the prevention of visits by long-term visitors should not have taken place. Again, it gives the impression that Mr. Cotton has been harassed.
On 30 November, Ashworth issued its guidelines to patients. In my view, some of those guidelines contravene the European convention on human rights, which the Government made great play of implementing. Mr. Cotton's rights have been considerably interfered with.
Will my hon. Friend look into the petty harassment or victimisation of Mr. Cotton? Is he receiving the treatment to which he is entitled?

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing this Adjournment debate. He raises several specific concerns on behalf of his constituent Roy Cotton, currently a patient in Ashworth high-security hospital. In the light of those concerns, I have made further inquiries about Mr. Cotton's case to gauge progress since my hon. Friend and I last corresponded on the subject. He referred to a number of issues raised by Mr. Cotton and I would like to deal with each of them in turn.
Mr. Cotton has expressed concern over the cancellation of several leaves of absence. Ideally, it should not be necessary to cancel visiting arrangements on financial grounds, and the regional director of mental health has asked the chair and chief executive of the hospital for a report in relation to Mr. Cotton.
I can tell my hon. Friend that Ashworth received an additional £2 million during the current financial year—as indeed it did during 1999–2000. That is over and above the substantial extra resources to support high-security hospital services and is in recognition of the cost pressures faced by the hospital and to allow it to deal with shortages of staff. In addition, the regional office has, by recently appointing a dedicated regional director of mental health, acknowledged the importance of more closely monitoring the performance of service delivered by Ashworth hospital.
I can advise my hon. Friend that Mr. Cotton's desire to move to a medium-secure placement was recently reconsidered by the mental health review tribunal—the appropriate body to make this decision, because all the relevant facts are available to it. I understand that the tribunal has made no recommendation about his transfer to a less secure unit—as my hon. Friend may already be aware.
Mr. Cotton expressed disappointment at the removal of a photograph album from his room. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of Mr. Cotton's concerns about that. It seems that the album was categorised as a book and, as such, counts as one of the 10 books that he is allowed to have in his room at any given time. The patient was permitted to keep the photos, but not the album itself. I shall cover that part of the safety and security directions in more depth later in my remarks.
I am advised, however, that Mr. Cotton does have access to stationery—I can assure my hon. Friend about that. All Mr. Cotton's mail is checked, with the exception of privileged mail—for example, his letters to and from his MP and his solicitor—in view of his clinical presentation. Privileged mail is treated in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Under the safety and security directions, patients' telephone calls may be recorded. Patients have access to two privileged telephone numbers; in practice, they are


usually the advocacy service and a legal representative. Patients are entitled to register 10 other numbers and there is a newly recorded message on the Ashworth telephone system, explaining which calls will not be recorded.
All food and tobacco brought in by visitors has been banned from the hospital as part of the new safety and security directions, which came into effect on 30 November. The directions apply to all patients; Mr. Cotton has not been singled out in any way.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the recommendations of the Fallon inquiry—established in February 1997 to investigate allegations of the misuse of drugs and alcohol, financial irregularities, possible paedophile activity and the availability of pornography within the personality disorder unit at Ashworth special hospital. The ward on which Mr. Cotton is cared for is part of that personality disorder service.
The inquiry reported on 12 January 1999. It severely criticised the management and security arrangements at Ashworth. The Government accepted the recommendations and allocated some £22.5 million to enable the three special hospitals to improve staffing levels, enhance safety and security, modernise services and implement the necessary change.
Each of the three high-security hospitals drew up action plans to address the issues raised in the Fallon inquiry. In May last year, Ashworth published its action plan to address the inquiry's recommendations.
Recommendation 7 of the Fallon report stipulated that an independent review of all aspects of physical security at Ashworth hospital should take place and be repeated at regular intervals. The scope of the independent review was extended to cover all three high-security hospitals.
Sir Richard Tilt, a former Director General of the Prison Service, was commissioned to undertake that review. Sir Richard's final report contained 86 separate recommendations. It was published on Monday 22 May 2000. The Government accepted the report's recommendations in full.
Two of the recommendations contained in Sir Richard's report are particularly relevant to tonight's debate. The first recommendation was that additional funding of £25 million should be provided to facilitate the movement of patients no longer needing high-security care. The Government are making the £25 million available to facilitate the movement out of high-security care of those patients who are inappropriately placed in high-security hospitals.
The need for the transfer to appropriate levels of security of 400 people who no longer require high-security care and the creation of new places by 2004 for the assessment and treatment of dangerous people with severe personality disorder was also a recommendation in the national health service plan.
Secondly, Sir Richard recommended that the safety and security directions be revised and extended. The original safety and security directions were issued to the high-security hospitals on 28 June 1999. The subjects covered by the original set of directions included the searching of patients, staff and visitors; limits on the extent of patients' possessions; and the monitoring of patients' post and telephone calls.
The revised set of safety and security directions were issued on 30 November 2000. In addition they cover, for example, the introduction of procedures for listening to

and recording patients' telephone calls; the introduction of restrictions on food and tobacco being brought in or sent into the hospitals for patients' consumption; and leave of absence arrangements, which my hon. Friend mentioned, for patients.
I am aware, as my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to it tonight and in previous correspondence, that his constituent is unhappy with the directions and finds it unreasonable that there is a limit on his personal possessions. However, there are very good reasons for these restrictions. There is a need to ensure, as Sir Richard emphasised, that possessions in patients' rooms are kept to a level and type that are compatible with the facilitation of searching, the maintenance of security and the reduction of fire hazards.
The guidance contained in the Mental Health Act code of practice is that all detained patients are entitled to maintain contact with, and be visited by, anyone that they wish to see, subject only to some carefully defined exceptions. The code states that any decision to prohibit a visit by a person whom the patient has asked to visit him, or whom he has agreed to see, should be regarded as a serious interference with the rights of that patient and should be taken in exceptional circumstances only.
I can tell my hon. Friend that the code refers to two principal situations in which the exclusion of visitors may be justified. First, it may be justified on clinical grounds—for example, where a visit is considered to be anti-therapeutic for the patient. Secondly, it may be justified on security grounds—for example, if a particular visitor has been disruptive in the past, perhaps having brought or attempted to bring illicit items into the hospital.
None of Mr. Cotton's visitors have been prevented from seeing him, although clinical concerns did lead a nurse and a social worker to discuss with one of his visitors their reservations about what my hon. Friend refers to as "grooming" during the course of her meetings with the patient.
All patients' visits are, rightly, subject to the safety and security directions. The directions apply to all patients, in all the high-security hospitals. Enforcement of the procedures concerning visitors is designed to ensure that visiting occurs in an environment that is safe for patients, visitors and staff alike.
My hon. Friend knows that I am aware of difficulties with response times to complaints at Ashworth. Ashworth's complaints procedures have been developed to conform with the national NHS complaints procedures. Ashworth patients have the same rights as any other NHS patient.
The Ashworth board requested an independent review of its complaints policy and the complaints department last December, because of concerns about how long it was taking to respond to complaints. The national target is that complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. At Ashworth hospital, unfortunately, only 16 per cent. were meeting that target; the report of the review was presented to the Ashworth board in May 2000 and a detailed action plan was developed and presented to the board in September.
I can tell my hon. Friend that additional staff have now been employed in the complaints department at Ashworth hospital. A new computer system is in place and training for front-line staff is under way to help them to deal with complaints more effectively.
Ashworth has set a target of responding to 50 per cent. of all complaints within 20 working days. I am advised that Ashworth will hit the target of responding to all complaints by the end of the next quarter. Unfortunately, that still falls short of the national average which is 62.5 per cent., so the NHS executive will be monitoring Ashworth's performance on a monthly basis. Ashworth is expected to hit the national average for responding to complaints within six months.
All complaints are dealt with through the formal complaint process. However, the patient ultimately has the right to have his case referred to the health service commissioner for England, who is independent of the Department of Health and the Government. I can tell my hon. Friend that from my inquiries I have ascertained that all his constituent's complaints have now received a response, with the exception of one received by the complaints department less than 20 days ago.
The purpose of high-security hospitals is to provide care for those mentally disordered people who have the most complex care needs. There is a need for patients to have leave of absence outside of hospital as part of their rehabilitation programme. Clearly, patient, public and staff safety is a key matter of concern when making judgments about the suitability for proceeding with a leave of absence.
The Tilt report recommended that leaves of absence for quality of life reasons should be discontinued. Since the Fallon inquiry, therefore, the number of leaves of absence

occurring within the personality disorder service has been reduced. In 1999, there were a total of 218 such absences; up to 15 December this year, there had been 173. Mr. Cotton has had two leaves of absence scheduled this year, both of which went ahead.
It is worth reminding ourselves that some of the most challenging patients in the country are cared for in Ashworth. Leaves of absence are occasionally cancelled because of adverse patient behaviour and, on a few occasions, because of staff not being available at short notice. Regrettably,it is therefore inevitable that some leaves of absence will be cancelled, for reasons that may be outside the hospital's control.
I am aware that my hon. Friend has been in extended correspondence with the chair of Ashworth for some months about issues relating to Mr. Cotton. As I am sure he will appreciate, this is a complex individual case, although I can understand his frustration that matters have not moved at the pace he would have wished.
I note that arrangements are in hand for the chair of Ashworth to meet my hon. Friend at the earliest possible date. I trust that that will allow the concerns that he has raised on behalf of his constituent to be dealt with satisfactorily. I am grateful to him for bringing those matters to my attention, and can confirm that Ashworth hospital will—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes past Twelve midnight.

Orders of the Day — Deferred Divisions

NATIONAL LOTTERY

That the draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 391, Noes 16.

Division No. 16]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bailey, Adrian
Clelland, David


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Darvill, Keith


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Borrow, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)


Breed, Colin



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Burgon, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Burnett, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drew, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Etherington, Bill


Caplin, Ivor
Fearn, Ronnie


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline





Flynn, Paul
Keeble, Ms Sally


Follett, Barbara
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Keetch, Paul


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Foulkes, George
Khabra, Piara S


Gapes, Mike
Kidney, David


Gardiner, Barry
Kilfoyle, Peter


George, Andrew (St Ives)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gerard, Neil
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gidley, Sandra
Kirkwood, Archy


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Godman, Dr Norman A
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
Lammy, David


Goggins, Paul
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Laxton, Bob


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lepper, David


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Leslie, Christopher


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Grocott, Bruce
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Grogan, John
Linton, Martin


Hain, Peter
Livsey, Richard


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lock, David


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Love, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCabe, Steve


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harris, Dr Evan
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Harvey, Nick



Healey, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McFall, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McIsaac, Shona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hendrick, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Heppell, John
McNulty, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
MacShane, Denis


Hesford, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McWalter, Tony


Hill, Keith
McWilliam, John


Hinchliffe, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Malins, Humfrey


Hood, Jimmy
Mallaber, Judy


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hope, Phil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Maxton, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Merron, Gillian


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hurst, Alan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hutton, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Miller, Andrew


Illsley, Eric
Moffatt, Laura


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moore, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Moss, Malcolm


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mountford, Kali



Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mudie, George


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug






Norris, Dan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Oaten, Mark
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Öpik, Lembit
Steinberg, Gerry


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stevenson, George


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pearson, Ian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Perham, Ms Linda
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quinn, Lawrie
Todd, Mark


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Truswell, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Tynan, Bill


Russell Bob (Colchester)
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ryan, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


St Aubyn, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Webb, Steve


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shaw, Jonathan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shipley, Ms Debra



Short, Rt Hon Clare
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Singh, Marsha
Willis, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Woodward, Shaun



Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Fisher, Mark
Thompson, William


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Question accordingly agreed to.

NATIONAL LOTTERY

That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 182.

Division No. 17]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Alexander, Douglas
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corston, Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bayley, Hugh
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beard, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Begg, Miss Anne
Darvill, Keith


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Best, Harold



Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Blackman, Liz
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dismore, Andrew


Blizzard, Bob
Dobbin, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradshaw, Ben
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coaker, Vernon
Grocott, Bruce






Grogan, John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hendrick, Mark
McWater, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hill, Keith
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian



Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hutton, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Dr Brian



Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jamieson, David
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pike, Peter L


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Khabra, Piara S
Pollard, Kerry


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lammy, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Purchase, Ken


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Rapson, Syd


Levitt, Tom
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Linton, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


Love, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)





Ryan, Ms Joan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sawford, Phil
Timms, Stephen


Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Shaw, Jonathan
Todd, Mark


Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Truswell, Paul


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
White, Brian


Southworth, Ms Helen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wills, Michael


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winnick, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woodward, Shaun


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clappison, James


Allan, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Blunt, Crispin
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evans, Nigel


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brake, Tom
Fallon, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Brazier, Julian
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Flight, Howard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fox, Dr Liam


Burnett, John
Fraser, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gibb, Nick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gidley, Sandra



Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl



Gray, James


Chidgey, David
Green, Damian


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John






Grieve, Dominic
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Fit Hon John
Norman, Archie


Hague, Rt Hon William
Oaten, Mark


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Hammond, Philip
Öpik, Lembit


Hancock, Mike
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Page, Richard


Harvey, Nick
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Prior, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Horam, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ruffley, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hunter, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Soames, Nicholas


Keetch, Paul
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Streeter, Gary


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Thompson, William


Lidington, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Livsey, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Trend, Michael


Loughton, Tim
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Luff, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Walter, Robert


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Webb, Steve


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Madel, Sir David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Major, Rt Hon John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Malins, Humfrey
Wilkinson, John


Maples, John
Willetts, David


Mates, Michael
Willis, Phil


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Wilshire, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moore, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.

DEREGULATION

That the draft Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 460, Noes 43.

Division No. 18]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Alexander, Douglas
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Allan, Richard
Ashton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Atherton, Ms Candy





Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baker, Norman
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Battle, John
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cotter, Brian


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bercow, John
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curry, Rt Hon David


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dalyell, Tam


Blunt, Crispin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brady, Graham



Brake, Tom
Dawson, Hilton


Brand, Dr Peter
Dean, Mrs Janet


Breed, Colin
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burgon, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Burnett, John
Duncan, Alan


Burstow, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butterfill, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Edwards, Huw


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Evans, Nigel



Fabricant, Michael


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fallon, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fearn, Ronnie


Cann, Jamie
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flight, Howard


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara


Chaytor, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clappison, James
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fox, Dr Liam



Gapes, Mike


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gardiner, Barry


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
George, Andrew (St Ives)






Gerrard, Neil
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gibb, Nick
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Gidley, Sandra
Keeble, Ms Sally


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Keetch, Paul


Godsiff, Roger
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Goggins, Paul
Key, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Khabra, Piara S


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Kidney, David


Green, Damian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Greenway, John
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Grocott, Bruce
Kirkwood, Archy


Grogan, John
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hain, Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lammy, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Lansley, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Hancock, Mike
Laxton, Bob


Hanson, David
Lepper, David


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Leslie, Christopher


Harris, Dr Evan
Letwin, Oliver


Harvey, Nick
Levitt, Tom


Hawkins, Nick
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Heald, Oliver
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Healey, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frorne)
Linton, Martin


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Livsey, Richard


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hendrick, Mark
Lock, David


Hepburn, Stephen
Love, Andrew


Heppell, John
Luff, Peter


Hesford, Stephen
McAvoy, Thomas


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McCabe, Steve


Hill, Keith
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hinchliffe, David
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hood, Jimmy
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
McFall, John


Hope, Phil
McIsaac, Shona


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Lindsay
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
McNulty, Tony


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
MacShane, Denis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Humble, Mrs Joan
McWalter, Tony


Hurst, Alan
McWilliam, John


Hutton, John
Madel, Sir David


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Illsley, Eric
Mallaber, Judy


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jamieson, David
Martlew, Eric


Jenkin, Bernard
Mates, Michael


Jenkins, Brian
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Maxton, John



Meale, Alan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Moore, Michael
Singh, Marsha


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)




Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mountford, Kali
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Squire, Ms Rachel


Norris, Dan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Oaten, Mark
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Öpik, Lembit
Streeter, Gary


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Ottaway, Richard
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Paice, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Townend, John


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Primarolo, Dawn
Truswell, Paul


Prior, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Randall, John
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rapson, Syd
Tyler, Paul


Raynsford, Nick
Tynan, Bill


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooney, Terry
Walter, Robert


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruane, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Joan
Watts, David


Ruffley, David
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
White, Brian


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whittingdale, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Salter, Martin
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sanders, Adrian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sedgemore, Brian
Willis, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Wills, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
Wilshire, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Woodward, Shaun






Worthington, Tony
Wyatt, Derek


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wright, Tony (Cannock)





NOES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony



Beggs, Roy
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Loughton, Tim


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Robathan, Andrew


Cran, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Soames, Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Spring, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Swayne, Desmond


Day, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Gray, James
Waterson, Nigel


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hammond, Philip
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

TAX SIMPLIFICATION (JOINT COMMITTEE)

That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.

The House divided: Ayes 520, Noes 4.

Division No. 19]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bercow, John


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Alexander, Douglas
Betts, Clive


Allan, Richard
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blizzard, Bob


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blunt, Crispin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Ashton, Joe
Body, Sir Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bailey, Adrian
Bradshaw, Ben


Baker, Norman
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brake, Tom


Banks, Tony
Brand, Dr Peter


Barnes, Harry
Brazier, Julian


Battle, John
Breed, Colin


Bayley, Hugh
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beard, Nigel
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Browning, Mrs Angela


Begg, Miss Anne
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beggs, Roy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Buck, Ms Karen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burden, Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Burgon, Colin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Burnett, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Burns, Simon


Benton, Joe
Burstow, Paul





Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Butterfill, John
Dowd, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drew, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Duncan, Alan


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Efford, Clive


Cann, Jamie
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Casale, Roger
Evans, Nigel


Caton, Martin
Fabricant, Michael


Cawsey, Ian
Fallon, Michael


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fearn, Ronnie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark


Chaytor, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chidgey, David
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Chope, Christopher
Flight, Howard


Clapham, Michael
Flint, Caroline


Clappison, James
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Don (Bath)



Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Dr Liam



Fraser, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gale, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Garnier, Edward


Clwyd, Ann
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Coaker, Vernon
Gerrard, Neil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gibb, Nick


Coleman, Iain
Gibson, Dr Ian


Collins, Tim
Gidley, Sandra


Colman, Tony
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cooper, Yvette
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Corbett, Robin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Corbyn, Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Corston, Jean
Goggins, Paul


Cotter, Brian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cousins, Jim
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cox, Tom
Gray, James


Cran, James
Green, Damian


Cranston, Ross
Greenway, John


Crausby, David
Grieve, Dominic


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cummings, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Grocott, Bruce


Curry, Rt Hon David
Grogan, John


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Dalyell, Tam
Hague, Rt Hon William


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hain, Peter


Darvill, Keith
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Davidson, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hammond, Philip


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hancock, Mike


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hanson, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick


Dawson, Hilton
Hawkins, Nick


Day, Stephen
Heald, Oliver


Dean, Mrs Janet
Healey, John


Denham, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Dismore, Andrew
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)






Hendrick, Mark
Levitt, Tom


Hepburn, Stephen
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Heppell, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Hesford, Stephen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Lidington, David


Hill, Keith
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Lirtton, Martin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Livsey, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hood, Jimmy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lock, David


Hope, Phil
Loughton, Tim


Horam, John
Love, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Luff, Peter


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
McCabe, Steve


Howells, Dr Kim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McFall, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hurst, Alan
McIsaac, Shona


Hutton, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Iddon, Dr Brian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Illsley, Eric
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
McNulty, Tony


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
MacShane, Denis


Jamieson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Jenkin, Bernard
McWalter, Tony


Jenkins, Brian
McWilliam, John


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Madel, Sir David



Mahon, Mrs Alice


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Major, Rt Hon John



Malins, Humfrey


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Mallaber, Judy


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Maples, John


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Martlew, Eric


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mates, Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Maxton, John


Keeble, Ms Sally
May, Mrs Theresa


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Meale, Alan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Merron, Gillian


Keetch, Paul
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Key, Robert
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Khabra, Piara S
Miller, Andrew


Kidney, David
Moffatt, Laura


Kilfoyle, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Moore, Michael


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Motley, Elliot


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kirkwood, Archy



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Moss, Malcolm


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mountford, Kali


Lammy, David
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Lansley, Andrew
Mudie, George


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Mullin, Chris


Laxton, Bob
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Leigh, Edward
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Lepper, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Leslie, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Letwin, Oliver
Norris, Dan





Oaten, Mark
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Spring, Richard


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Öpik, Lembit
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Organ, Mrs Diana
Steinberg, Gerry


Ottaway, Richard
Stevenson, George


Page, Richard
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Paice, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Palmer, Dr Nick
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pearson, Ian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Perham, Ms Linda
Streeter, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Swayne, Desmond


Plaskitt, James
Syms, Robert


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prior, David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, William


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, John
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Townend, John


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruffley, David
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sanders, Adrian
Walley, Ms Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheerman, Barry
Webb, Steve


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
White, Brian


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Singh, Marsha
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Willetts, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winnick, David






Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Wright, Tony (Cannnock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woodward, Shaun
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Worthington, Tony





NOES


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Question accordingly agreed to.

FAMILY LAW

That the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 483, Noes 44.

Division No. 20]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Burgon, Colin


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cann, Jamie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Caplin, Ivor


Austin, John
Casale, Roger


Bailey, Adrian
Caton, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Banks, Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clappison, James


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bercow, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blackman, Liz
Clelland, David


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Coaker, Vernon


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blunt, Crispin
Coleman, Iain


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Collins, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Colman, Tony


Borrow, David
Cooper, Yvette


Boswell, Tim
Corbett, Robin


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cox, Tom


Bradshaw, Ben
Cran, James


Brady, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Brazier, Julian
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)





Cummings, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hain, Peter


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Dalyell, Tam
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Darvill, Keith
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hammond, Philip


Davidson, Ian
Hanson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hawkins, Nick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Healey, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Dawson, Hilton
Hendrick, Mark


Day, Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen


Dean, Mrs Janet
Heppell, John


Denham, John
Hesford, Stephen


Dismore, Andrew
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dobbin, Jim
Hill, Keith


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hinchliffe, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Doran, Frank
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Dowd, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Drew, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Drown, Ms Julia
Hope, Phil


Duncan, Alan
Horam, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Edwards, Huw
Howells, Dr Kim


Efford, Clive
Hoyle, Lindsay


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Etherington, Bill
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Evans, Nigel
Humble, Mrs Joan


Fabricant, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Fallon, Michael
Hutton, John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Iddon, Dr Brian


Fisher, Mark
Illsley, Eric


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Flight, Howard
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Flint, Caroline
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Flynn, Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Follett, Barbara
Jamieson, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jenkin, Bernard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jenkins, Brian


Foulkes, George
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman



Fox, Dr Liam
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Gapes, Mike
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Gardiner, Barry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Garnier, Edward
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Gerard, Neil



Gibb, Nick
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Godman, Dr Norman A
Keeble, Ms Sally


Godsiff, Roger
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Goggins, Paul
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Key, Robert


Gray, James
Khabra, Piara S


Green, Damian
Kidney, David


Greenway, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Grieve, Dominic
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Grocott, Bruce
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Grogan, John
Kumar, Dr Ashok






Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mudie, George


Lammy, David
Mullin, Chris


Lansley, Andrew
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Laxton, Bob
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Leigh, Edward
Norman, Archie


Lepper, David
Norris, Dan


Leslie, Christopher
O'Brien. Bill (Normanton)


Letwin, Oliver
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Levitt, Tom
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Olner, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Lidington, David
Ottaway, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Page, Richard


Linton, Martin
Paice, James


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pearson, Ian


Lock, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Loughton, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Love, Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


Luff, Peter
Pike, Peter L


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Plaskitt, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Pollard, Kerry


McCabe, Steve
Pond, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pope, Greg


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Pound, Stephen


McDonagh, Siobhain
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McFall, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Prescott, Rt Hon John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Primarolo, Dawn


McIsaac, Shona
Prior, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Purchase, Ken


Mackinlay, Andrew
Quinn, Lawrie


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Randall, John


McNulty, Tony
Rapson, Syd


MacShane, Denis
Raynsford, Nick


Mactaggart, Fiona
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McWalter, Tony
Robathan, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Madel, Sir David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Major, Rt Hon John
Rogers, Allan


Malins, Humfrey
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Mallaber, Judy
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maples, John
Ruane, Chris


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruddock, Joan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ruffley, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Martlew, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mates, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Salter, Martin


Maxton, John
Savidge, Malcolm


May, Mrs Theresa
Sawford, Phil


Meale, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Merron, Gillian
Sedgemore, Brian


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shaw, Jonathan


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Miller, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Moffatt, Laura
Shipley, MsDebra


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Morley, Elliot
Singh, Marsha


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moss, Malcolm






Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Soames, Nicholas
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tyrie, Andrew


Spellar, John
Vaz, Keith


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walter, Robert


Steinberg, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Waterson, Nigel


Stoate, Dr Howard
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Streeter, Gary
Whittingdale, John


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Swayne, Desmond
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Syms, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Willetts, David



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wilshire, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Woodward, Shaun


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Townend, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tredinnick, David
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Trend, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Truswell, Paul





NOES


Allan, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Baker, Norman
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brake, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Keetch, Paul


Burnett, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Cable, Dr Vincent
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Moore, Michael



Oaten, Mark


Chidgey, David
Öpik, Lembit



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chope, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gidley, Sandra
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil

Question accordingly agreed to.

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 522, Noes 5.

Division No. 21]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard



Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caplin, Ivor


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Casale, Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Caton, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chaytor, David


Austin, John
Chidgey, David


Bailey, Adrian
Clapham, Michael


Baker, Norman
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barnes, Harry



Battle, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy



Beith, Rt Hon AJ
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clelland, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Ann


Benton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Bercow, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Berry, Roger
Coleman, lain


Best, Harold
Collins, Tim


Betts, Clive
Colman, Tony


Blackman, Liz
Cooper, Yvette


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blizzard, Bob
Corston, Jean


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cotter, Brian


Blunt, Crispin
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cox, Tom


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Borrow, David
Cranston, Ross


Boswell, Tim
Crausby, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brake, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Brand, Dr Peter
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brazier, Julian
Darvill, Keith


Breed, Colin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davidson, Ian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Burgon, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burnett, John



Burns, Simon
Dawson, Hilton


Burstow, Paul
Day, Stephen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Butterfill, John
Denham, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dismore, Andrew





Dobbin, Jim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Doran, Frank
Hendrick, Mark


Dowd, Jim
Hepburn, Stephen


Drew, David
Heppell, John


Drown, Ms Julia
Hesford, Stephen


Duncan, Alan
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hill, Keith


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Hinchliffe, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Edwards, Huw
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Efford, Clive
Hood, Jimmy


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Etherington, Bill
Hope, Phil


Evans, Nigel
Horam, John


Fabricant, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Fearn, Ronnie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Howells, Dr Kim


Fisher, Mark
Hoyle, Lindsay


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Flight, Howard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Flint, Caroline
Humble, Mrs Joan


Flynn, Paul
Hurst, Alan


Follett, Barbara
Hutton, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Illsley, Eric


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Foulkes, George
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Fox, Dr Liam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Fraser, Christopher
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Gale, Roger
Jamieson, David


Gapes, Mike
Jenkin, Bernard


Gardiner, Barry
Jenkins, Brian


Garnier, Edward
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gibb, Nick



Gibson, Dr Ian
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Gidley, Sandra
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Goggins, Paul
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gray, James
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Green, Damian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Greenway, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Grieve, Dominic
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Keetch, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Key, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Khabra, Piara S


Grogan, John
Kidney, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Hain, Peter
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Hammond, Philip
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hancock, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hanson, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Harris, Dr Evan
Lammy, David


Harvey, Nick
Lansley, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Heald, Oliver
Laxton, Bob


Healey, John
Leigh, Edward


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Lepper, David






Leslie, Christopher
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Letwin, Oliver
Norman, Archie


Levitt, Tom
Norris, Dan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Oaten, Mark


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lidington, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
O'Hara, Eddie


Linton, Martin
Olner, Bill


Livsey, Richard
Öpik, Lembit


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ottaway, Richard


Lock, David
Page, Richard


Loughton, Tim
Pace, James


Love, Andrew
Palmer, Dr Nick


Luff, Peter
Pearson, Ian


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Perham, Ms Linda


McAvoy, Thomas
Pickles, Eric


McCabe, Steve
Pickthall, Colin


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pike, Peter L


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Pond, Chris


McFall, John
Pope, Greg


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Pound, Stephen


McIsaac, Shona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Prosser, Gwyn


McLoughlin, Patrick
Purchase, Ken


McNulty, Tony
Quinn, Lawrie


MacShane, Denis
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Mactaggart, Fiona
Randall, John


McWalter, Tony
Rapson, Syd


McWilliam, John
Raynsford, Nick


Madel, Sir David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Robathan, Andrew


Major, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Malins, Humfrey
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mallaber, Judy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rogers, Allan


Maples, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rooney, Terry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruane, Chris


Martlew, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Mates, Michael
Ruffley, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maxton, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


May, Mrs Theresa
Ryan, Ms Joan


Meale, Alan
St Aubyn, Nick


Merron, Gillian
Salter, Martin


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sanders, Adrian


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sawford, Phil


Miller, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moffatt, Laura
Sedgemore, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shaw, Jonathan


Moore, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Morley, Elliot
Shipley, Ms Debra


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Short, Rt Hon Clare



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Singh, Marsha


Moss, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)





Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Soames, Nicholas
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Soley, Clive
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tyler, Paul


Spellar, John
Tynan, Bill


Spring, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vaz, Keith


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stevenson, George
Walter, Robert


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Waterson, Nigel


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Streeter, Gary
Webb, Steve


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Swayne, Desmond
Whittingdale, John


Syms, Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Willetts, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Willis, Phil


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wills, Michael


Thompson, William
Wilshire, David


Timms, Stephen
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Todd, Mark
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Touhig, Don
Wood, Mike


Townend, John
Woodward, Shaun


Tredinnick, David
Worthington, Tony


Trend, Michael
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George




NOES


Chope, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 522, Noes 5.

Division No. 22]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John


Allan, Richard
Bailey, Adrian


Allen, Graham
Baker, Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Barnes, Harry


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Battle, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Beard, Nigel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret






Begg, Miss Anne
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clwyd, Ann


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Collins, Tim


Benton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Bercow, John
Cooper, Yvette


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Best, Harold
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cotter, Brian


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Cran, James


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cranston, Ross


Blunt, Crispin
Crausby, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Body, Sir Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Cummings, John


Boswell, Tim
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brady, Graham
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davidson, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilty)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)



Buck, Ms Karen
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Day, Stephen


Burgon, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burnett, John
Denham, John


Burns, Simon
Dismore, Andrew


Burstow, Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Butterfill, John
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Cable, Dr Vincent
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Duncan, Alan



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Evans, Nigel


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fabricant, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fallon, Michael



Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chidgey, David
Fisher, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clappison, James
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flight, Howard


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flint, Caroline



Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foulkes, George



Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fox, Dr Liam


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Fraser, Christopher





Gale, Roger
Jamieson, David


Gapes, Mike
Jenkin, Bernard


Gardiner, Barry
Jenkins, Brian


Garnier, Edward
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gibb, Nick



Gibson, Dr Ian
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Gidley, Sandra
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Goggins, Paul
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gray, James
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Green, Damian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Greenway, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Grieve, Dominic
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Keetch, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Key, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Khabra, Piara S


Grogan, John
Kidney, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Hain, Peter
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Hammond, Philip
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hancock, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hanson, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Harris, Dr Evan
Lammy, David


Harvey, Nick
Lansley, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Heald, Oliver
Laxton, Bob


Healey, John
Leigh, Edward


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Lepper, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Leslie, Christopher


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Letwin, Oliver


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Levitt, Tom


Hendrick, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Heppell, John
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hesford, Stephen
Lidington, David


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Livsey, Richard


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hood, Jimmy
Lock, David


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Loughton, Tim


Hope, Phil
Love, Andrew


Horam, John
Luff, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McCabe, Steve


Howells, Dr Kim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McFall, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hurst, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hutton, John
McIsaac, Shona


Iddon, Dr Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Illsley, Eric
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
McNulty, Tony






MacShane, Denis
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Mactaggart, Fiona
Randall, John


McWalter, Tony
Rapson, Syd


McWilliam, John
Raynsford, Nick


Madel, Sir David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Robathan, Andrew


Major, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Malins, Humfrey
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mallaber, Judy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rogers, Allan


Maples, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rooney, Terry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruane, Chris


Martlew, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Mates, Michael
Ruffley, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maxton, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


May, Mrs Theresa
Ryan, Ms Joan


Meale, Alan
St Aubyn, Nick


Merron, Gillian
Salter, Martin


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sanders, Adrian


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sawford, Phil


Miller, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moffatt, Laura
Sedgemore, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shaw, Jonathan


Moore, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Morley, Elliot
Shipley, Ms Debra


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Short, Rt Hon Clare



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Singh, Marsha


Moss, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Norman, Archie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Oaten, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Spring, Richard


Olner, Bill
Squire, Ms Rachel


Öpik, Lembit
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Ottaway, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Page, Richard
Stevenson, George


Paice, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Perham, Ms Linda
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickles, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Swayne, Desmond


Pollard, Kerry
Syms, Robert


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prior, David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, William


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen





Tipping, Paddy
Webb, Steve


Todd, Mark
White, Brian


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Touhig, Don
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Trend, Michael
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


Truswell, Paul
Willetts, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wills, Michael


Tyler, Paul
Wilshire, David


Tynan, Bill
Winnick, David


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaz, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wood, Mike


Walley, Ms Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Walter, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Waterson, Nigel
Wyatt, Derek


Watts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George




NOES


Chope, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 522, Noes 5.

Division No. 23]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Alexander, Douglas
Benton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Bercow, John


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Harold


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atkins, Charlotte
Blunt, Crispin


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard


Austin, John
Borrow, David


Bailey, Adrian
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Norman
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Battle, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Bayley, Hugh
Brady, Graham


Beard, Nigel
Brake, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brand, Dr Peter


Begg, Miss Anne
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Breed, Colin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter






Browning, Mrs Angela
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)



Buck, Ms Karen
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Day, Stephen


Burgon, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burnett, John
Denham, John


Burns, Simon
Dismore, Andrew


Burstow, Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Butterfill, John
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Cable, Dr Vincent
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Duncan, Alan



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Evans, Nigel


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fabricant, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fallon, Michael



Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chidgey, David
Fisher, Mark


Clapham, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clappison, James
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flight, Howard


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flint, Caroline



Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foulkes, George



Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fox, Dr Liam


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Fraser, Christopher


Clelland, David
Gale, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gapes, Mike


Clwyd, Ann
Gardiner, Barry


Coaker, Vernon
Garnier, Edward


Coffey, Ms Ann
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Coleman, lain
Gerrard, Neil


Collins, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Colman, Tony
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cooper, Yvette
Gidley, Sandra


Corbett, Robin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Corston, Jean
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cotter, Brian
Godsiff, Roger


Cousins, Jim
Goggins, Paul


Cox, Tom
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cran, James
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cranston, Ross
Gray, James


Crausby, David
Green, Damian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Greenway, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Grieve, Dominic


Cummings, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Grocott, Bruce


Dalyell, Tarn
Grogan, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Darvill, Keith
Hague, Rt Hon William


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hain, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Davidson, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hammond, Philip


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hancock, Mike





Hanson, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harrie
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Harris, Dr Evan
Lammy, David


Harvey, Nick
Lansley, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Heald, Oliver
Laxton, Bob


Healey, John
Leigh, Edward


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Lepper, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Leslie, Christopher


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Letwin, Oliver


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Levitt, Tom


Hendrick, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Heppell, John
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hesford, Stephen
Lidington, David


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Livsey, Richard


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hood, Jimmy
Lock, David


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Loughton, Tim


Hope, Phil
Love, Andrew


Horam, John
Luff, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McCabe, Steve


Howells, Dr Kim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McFall, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hurst, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hutton, John
McIsaac, Shona


Iddon, Dr Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Illslev Eric
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
McNulty, Tony


Jamieson, David
MacShane, Denis


Jenkin, Bernard
Mactaggart, Fiona


Jenkins, Brian
McWalter, Tony


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
McWilliam, John



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Major, Rt Hon John


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Malins, Humfrey


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mallaber, Judy


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter



Maples, John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Martlew, Eric


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Mates, Michael


Keeble, Ms Sally
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Maxton, John


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
May, Mrs Theresa


Keetch, Paul
Meale, Alan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Merron, Gillian


Key, Robert
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Khabra, Piara S
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Kidney, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Miller, Andrew


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Moffatt, Laura


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Moore, Michael


Kingham, Ms Tess
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Morley, Elliot


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen







Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Singh, Marsha


Moss, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Fit Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Norman, Archie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Oaten, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Spring, Richard


Olner, Bill
Squire, Ms Rachel


Öpik, Lembit
Stanley Rt Hon Sir John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Starkey Dr Phyllis


Ottaway, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Page, Richard
Stevenson, George


Paice, James
Stewart David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Perham, Ms Linda
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickles, Eric
Streeten Gary


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Swayne, Desmond


Pollard, Kerry
Syms, Robert


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prior, David
Thomas Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, William


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, John
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Townend, John


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinniok, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek(Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruffley, David
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sanders, Adrian
Walley, MS Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheerman, Barry
Webb, Steve


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
White, Brian


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Whittingdale, John


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann





Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wilkinson, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Willetts, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wood, Mike



Woodward, Shaun


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Willis, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Wilshire, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Winnick, David





NOES


Chope, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 484, Noes 44.

Division No. 24]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brady, Graham


Alexander, Douglas
Brazier, Julian


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Buck, Ms Karen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burgon, Colin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Charlotte
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Austin, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Baldry, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Battle, John
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Caton, Martin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cawsey, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beggs, Roy
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chaytor, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clappison, James


Benton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blizzard, Bob



Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blunt, Crispin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clelland, David


Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Boswell, Tim
Coaker, Vernon


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Collins, Tim






Colman, Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Cooper, Yvette
Goggins, Paul


Corbett, Robin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Corston, Jean
Gray, James


Cousins, Jim
Green, Damian


Cox, Tom
Greenway, John


Cran, James
Grieve, Dominic


Cranston, Ross
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Crausby, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Grocott, Bruce


Cummings, John
Grogan, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hague, Rt Hon William


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hain, Peter


Dalyell, Tarn
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Darvill, Keith
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Davidson, Ian
Hammond, Philip


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hanson, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hawkins, Nick


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Heald, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Healey, John


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Dawson, Hilton
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Day, Stephen
Hendrick, Mark


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hepburn, Stephen


Denham, John
Heppell, John


Dismore, Andrew
Hesford, Stephen


Dobbin, Jim
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hill, Keith


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Hinchliffe, David


Doran, Frank
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dowd, Jim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Drew, David
Hood, Jimmy


Drown, Ms Julia
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Hope, Phil


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Horam, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Edwards, Huw
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Efford, Clive
Howells, Dr Kim


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Hoyle, Lindsay


Etherington, Bill
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Evans, Nigel
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Fabricant, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Fallon, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Hutton, John


Fisher, Mark
Iddon, Dr Brian


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Flight, Howard
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Flint, Caroline
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Flynn, Paul
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Follett, Barbara
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jamieson, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jenkin, Bernard


Foulkes, George
Jenkins, Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fox, Dr Liam



Fraser, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gale, Roger



Gapes, Mike
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Gardiner, Barry
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Garnier, Edward
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Gerrard, Neil
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Gibb, Nick



Gibson, Dr Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Gill, Christopher
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Godman, Dr Norman A
Keeble, Ms Sally





Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Miller, Andrew


Key, Robert
Moffatt, Laura


Khabra, Piara S
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kidney, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Morley, Elliot


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kingham, Ms Tess
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Moss, Malcolm


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mudie, George


Lammy, David
Mullin, Chris


Lansley, Andrew
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Laxton, Bob
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Leigh, Edward
Norman, Archie


Lepper, David
Norris, Dan


Leslie, Christopher
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Letwin, Oliver
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Levitt, Torn
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Olner, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Organ, Mrs Diana


Lidington, David
Ottaway, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Page, Richard


Linton, Martin
Paice, James


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pearson, Ian


Lock, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Loughton, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Love, Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


Luff, Peter
Pike, Peter L


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Plaskitt, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Pollard, Kerry


McCabe, Steve
Pond, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pope, Greg


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Pound, Stephen


McDonagh, Siobhain
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McFall, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Prescott, Rt Hon John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Primarolo, Dawn


McIsaac, Shona
Prior, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Purchase, Ken


Mackinlay, Andrew
Quinn, Lawrie


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Randall, John


McNulty, Tony
Rapson, Syd


MacShane, Denis
Raynsford, Nick


Mactaggart, Fiona
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McWalter, Tony
Robathan, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Madel, Sir David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Major, Rt Hon John
Rogers, Allan


Malins, Humfrey
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Mallaber, Judy
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maples, John
Ruane, Chris


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruddock, Joan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ruffley, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Martlew, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mates, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Salter, Martin


Maxton, John
Savidge, Malcolm


May, Mrs Theresa
Sawford, Phil


Meale, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Merron, Gillian
Sedgemore, Brian


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shaw, Jonathan






Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Townend, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tredinnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Trend, Michael


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tynan, Bill



Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Viggers, peter


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Soames, Nicholas
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Walter, Robert


Southworth, Ms Helen
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
White, Bran


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Whittingdale, John


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilkinson, John


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Swayne, Desmond
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Syms, Robert
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wilshire, David



Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Woodward, Shaun


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thompson, William
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen
Wyatt, Derek


Tipping, Paddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Todd, Mark





NOES


Allan, Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Baker, Norman
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brake, Tom
Hunter, Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Breed, Colin
Keetch, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burstow, Paul
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cable, Dr Vincent
Moore, Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Oaten, Mark



Öpik, Lembit


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chope, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gidley, Sandra
Webb, Steve


Hancock, Mike
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick

Question accordingly agreed to.

SECTION 5 OF TOE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01, and the Pre—Budget Report 2000 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 169.

Division No. 25]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cooper, Yvette


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Austin, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cummings, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Berry, Roger
Darvill, Keith


Best, Harold
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge Hill)


Blizzard, Bob



Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Burgon, Colin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Etherington, Bill


Cann, Jamie
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Follett, Barbara


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foulkes, George



Gapes, Mike


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gardiner, Barry


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gibson, Dr Ian






Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Godsiff, Roger
Linton, Martin


Goggins, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lock, David


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCabe, Steve


Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hendrick, Mark
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hill, Keith
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keeble, Ms Sally
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pickthall, Colin


Khabra, Piara S
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pope, Greg


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lammy, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Radice, Rt Hon Giles





Rapson, Syd
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rogers, Allan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sawford Phil
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tynan, Bill


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Watts David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Soley, Clive



Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Wood, Mike


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Woodward, Shaun


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chidgey, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Norman
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beggs, Roy
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Collins, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Cotter, Brian


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David



Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brady, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Breed, Colin
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronnie


Burnett, John
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fox, Dr Liam






Fraser, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malins, Humfrey


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Maples, John


Gibb, Nick
Mates, Michael


Gidley, Sandra
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Moore, Michael


Gray, James
Moss, Malcolm


Green, Damian
Norman, Archie


Greenway, John
Oaten, Mark


Grieve, Dominic
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Öpik, Lembit


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Page, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Paice, James


Hancock, Mike
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Harris, Dr Evan
Prior, David


Harvey, Nick
Randall, John


Hawkins, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sanders, Adrian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hunter, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Syms Robert



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Keetch, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Key, Robert
Thompson William


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tonge, Dr. Jenny


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Leigh, Edward
Tyler, Paul


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lidington, David
Walter, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Webb, Steve


Loughton, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Willetts, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Willis, Phil


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.

ANIMALS

That the Mink Keeping Order 2000, dated 22nd November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 516, Noes 6.

Division No. 26]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Allen, Graham


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Alexander, Douglas
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Allan, Richard
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary





Ashton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chidgey, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clapham, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Austin, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bailey, Adrian
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bennett, Andrew F
Coleman, lain


Benton, Joe
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Cooper, Yvette


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Liz
Corston, Jean


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cotter, Brian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Cox, Tom


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Cranston, Ross


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Crausby, David


Body, Sir Richard
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Borrow, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Boswell, Tim
Cummings, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Brady, Graham
Darvill, Keith


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brazier, Julian
Davidson, Ian


Breed, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Buck, Ms Karen



Burden, Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Burgon, Colin
Day, Stephen


Burnett, John
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burns, Simon
Denham, John


Burstow, Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Butterfill, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Cable, Dr Vincent
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drew, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Drown, Ms Julia



Duncan, Alan


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Evans, Nigel


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fabricant, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fallon, Michael



Fearn, Ronnie






Field, Rt Hon Frank
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Humble, Mrs Joan


Right, Howard
Hurst, Alan


Flint, Caroline
Hutton, John


Flynn, Paul
Iddon, Dr Brian


Follett, Barbara
Illsley, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Foulkes, George
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Fox, Dr Liam
Jamieson, David


Fraser, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Gale, Roger
Jenkins, Brian


Gapes, Mike
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Gardiner, Barry



Garnier, Edward
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Gibb, Nick
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Gidley, Sandra
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Gill, Christopher



Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Godsiff, Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Goggins, Paul
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Keeble, Ms Sally


Gray, James
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Green, Damian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Greenway, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Grieve, Dominic
Key, Robert


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Khabra, Piara S


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Kidney, David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Grogan, John
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Kingham, Ms Tess


Hain, Peter
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Kirkwood, Archy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Hammond, Philip
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Hancock, Mike
Lammy, David


Hanson, David
Lansley, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Harris, Dr Evan
Laxton, Bob


Harvey, Nick
Lepper, David


Hawkins, Nick
Leslie, Christopher


Heald, Oliver
Letwin, Oliver


Healey, John
Levitt, Tom


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Hendrick, Mark
Lidington, David


Hepburn, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Heppell, John
Linton, Martin


Hesford, Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hill, Keith
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hinchliffe, David
Lock, David


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Loughton, Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Love, Andrew


Hood, Jimmy
Luff, Peter


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hope, Phil
McAvoy, Thomas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McCabe, Steve


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
McDonagh, Siobhain





McFall, John
Pope, Greg


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Pound, Stephen


McIsaac, Shona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Prosser, Gwyn


McLoughlin, Patrick
Purchase, Ken


McNulty, Tony
Quinn, Lawrie


MacShane, Denis
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Mactaggart, Fiona
Randall, John


McWalter, Tony
Rapson, Syd


McWilliam, John
Raynsford, Nick


Madel, Sir David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Robathan, Andrew


Major, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Malins, Humfrey
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mallaber, Judy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rogers, Allan


Maples, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rooney, Terry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruane, Chris


Martlew, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Mates, Michael
Ruffley, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maxton, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


May, Mrs Theresa



Meale, Alan
Ryan, Ms Joan


Merron, Gillian
St Aubyn, Nick


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Salter, Martin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sanders, Adrian


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Savidge, Malcolm


Miller, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


Moffatt, Laura
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sedgemore, Brian


Moore, Michael
Shaw, Jonathan


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morley, Elliot
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Shipley, Ms Debra



Short, Rt Hon Clare


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Moss, Malcolm
Singh, Marsha


Mountford, Kali
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Norman, Archie
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Oaten, Mark
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soames, Nicholas


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Hara, Eddie
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Spring, Richard


Öpik, Lembit
Squire, Ms Rachel


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Ottaway, Richard
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Page, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Paice, James
Stevenson, George


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pearson, Ian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Perham, Ms Linda
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickles, Eric
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Streeter, Gary


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Swayne, Desmond


Pond, Chris
Syms, Robert






Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Walter, Robert



Ward, Ms Claire


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Webb, Steve


Temple-Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Whittingdale, John


Timms, Stephen
Wicks, Malcolm


Tipping, Paddy
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Todd, Mark
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wilkinson, John


Touhig, Don
Willetts, David


Townend, John
Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Truswell, Paul
Willis, Phil


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wood, Mike


Tyler, Paul
Woodward, Shaun


Tynan, Bill
Worthington, Tony


Tyrie, Andrew
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Viggers, Peter
Wyatt, Derek


Vis, Dr Rudi
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walley, Ms Joan





NOES


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Question accordingly agreed to.

BROADCASTING

That the draft Broadcasting (Limit on the Holding of Licences to Provide Television Multiplex Services) Order 2001, Which was laid before this House on 1lth December, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 523, Noes 4.

Division No. 27]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Beard, Nigel


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)
Begg, Miss Anne


Alexander, Douglas
Beggs, Roy


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Allen, Graham
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bercow, John


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Blackman, Liz


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blair, Rt Horl Tony


Austin, John
Blears, Ms Hazel


Bailey, Adrian
Blizzard, Bob


Baker, Norman
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Blunt, Crispin


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Rt Son Paul


Barnes, Harry
Body, Sir Richard


Battle, John
Borrow, David


Bayley, Hugh
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tarn


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brady, Graham
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davidson, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)



Buck, Ms Karen
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Day, Stephen


Burgon, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burnett, John
Denham, John


Burns, Simon
Dismore, Andrew


Burstow, Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Butterfill, John
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Cable, Dr Vincent
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Duncan, Alan



Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Cawsey, Ian
Evans, Nigel


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fabricant, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fallon, Michael



Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chidgey, David
Fisher, Mark


Chope, Christopher
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clapham, Michael
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clappison, James
Right, Howard


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flint, Caroline


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman



Fox, Dr Liam


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fraser, Christopher


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gale, Roger


Clelland, David
Gapes, Mike


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gardiner, Barry


Clwyd, Ann
Garnier, Edward


Coaker, Vernon
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gerrard, Neil


Coleman, Iain
Gibb, Nick


Collins, Tim
Gibson, Dr Ian


Colman, Tony
Gidley, Sandra


Cooper, Yvette
Gill, Christopher


Corbett, Robin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cotter, Brian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cousins, Jim
Godsiff, Roger


Cox, Tom
Goggins, Paul


Cran, James
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cranston, Ross
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Crausby, David
Gray, James


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Green, Damian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Greenway, John


Cummings, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)






Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Key, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Khabra, Piara S


Grogan, John
Kidney, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Hain, Peter
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Hammond, Philip
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Hancock, Mike
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hanson, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Harris, Dr Evan
Lammy, David


Harvey, Nick
Lansley, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Heald, Oliver
Laxton, Bob


Healey, John
Lepper, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Leslie, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Letwin, Oliver


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Levitt, Tom


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hendrick, Mark
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Hepburn, Stephen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Heppell, John
Lidington, David


Hesford, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Linton, Martin


Hill, Keith
Livsey, Richard


Hinchliffe, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Lock, David


Hood, Jimmy
Loughton, Tim


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Love, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Luff, Peter


Horam, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McCabe, Steve


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McFall, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Humble, Mrs Joan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hurst, Alan
McIsaac, Shona


Hutton, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Iddon, Dr Brian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Illsley, Eric
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
McNulty, Tony


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
MacShane, Denis


Jamieson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Jenkin, Bernard
McWalter, Tony


Jenkins, Brian
McWilliam, John


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Madel, Sir David



Mahon, Mrs Alice


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Major, Rt Hon John



Malins, Humfrey


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Mallaber, Judy


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Maples, John


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Martlew, Eric


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mates, Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Maxton, John


Keeble, Ms Sally
May, Mrs Theresa


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Meale, Alan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Merron, Gillian


Keetch, Paul
Michael, Rt Hon Alun





Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sawford, Phil


Miller, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moffatt, Laura
Sedgemore, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shaw, Jonathan


Moore, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Morley, Elliot
Shipley, Ms Debra


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Short, Rt Hon Clare



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Singh, Marsha


Moss, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Tonaen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Norman, Archie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Oaten, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Spring, Richard


Olner, Bill
Squire, Ms Rachel


Öpik, Lembit
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Ottaway, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Page, Richard
Stevenson, George


Paice, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Perham, Ms Linda
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickles, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Swayne, Desmond


Pollard, Kerry
Syms, Robert


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prior, David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, William


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, John
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Townend, John


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruffley, David
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sanders, Adrian
Walley, Ms Joan






Walter, Robert
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ward, Ms Claire
Wilkinson, John


Wareing, Robert N
Willetts, David


Waterson, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Watts, David



Webb, Steve
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


White, Brian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willis, Phil


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Wills, Michael


Whittingdale, John
Wilshire, David


Wicks, Malcolm
Winnick, David


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)





Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woodward, Shaun
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Worthington, Tony





NOES


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Question accordingly agreed to.